U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–143PDF 2014

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 10, 2014 

Serial No. 113–72 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

VACANCY 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

April 10, 2014 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary, Department of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 41 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary, Department of Energy ........................ 84 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES 

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:07 a.m., in Room 2318 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. Welcome to today’s hearing titled, ‘‘Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities.’’ And let me 

say to Members at the outset, and we don’t have everyone here 

whom we expect to be here in just a few minutes because the 

Democrats have a caucus at 9:00, and we have several Members at 

that caucus and we hope that they will be here in a few minutes. 

But we are going to be a little bit cramped in time today. We 

have two votes. The first series of votes is at 10:00, in less than 

an hour. We will come back after that series for about 45 minutes. 

And then we have another series of votes starting at 11:00 that will 

take us through 12:15, and the Secretary needs to leave at 12:30. 

So we may have a very short hearing today from now until 10:00 

and then from about 10:15 or 10:30 until 11:00 or 11:15. So we will 

try to expedite the process here, but yet hopefully everybody who 

has a question or two will be able to ask those questions. 

I would like to welcome two Members to the Science, Space, and 

Technology Committee who are new Members. First is Representative Bill Johnson from Ohio’s 6th Congressional District to my left, 

and Representative Katherine Clark from Massachusetts’ 5th Congressional District, and she will be here momentarily. An engineer 

by training, Representative Johnson served 26 years in the United 

States Air Force, started his own high-tech business and ran a 

multi-million dollar department for a major electronics manufacturer. It doesn’t hurt that he holds a Master’s degree in computer 

science from Georgia Tech. He also joins Representative Thomas 

Massie on the Committee as a patent holder. Representative Johnson will serve on the Research and Technology Subcommittee and 

the Oversight Subcommittee as well, and we welcome Bill to the 

Committee. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored 

to serve. 

Chairman SMITH. I wish she were here, but I will introduce her 

in her absence and that is that we welcome also Representative 

Katherine Clark from Massachusetts, joining us on the other side 

of the aisle here. She has a special interest in alternative forms of 

energy and no doubt will enjoy today’s hearing, her first. I might 

also add there aren’t many attorneys on the Committee. Katherine 

Clark is, and no doubt her Cornell law degree will enable her to 

cross examine witnesses, though I doubt she is too tough on today’s 

witness. 

You know, come to think of it, that gives us two lawyers from 

Massachusetts including Joe Kennedy, which is definitely our limit. 

The Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for her comments about Representative Clark. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to welcome Mr. Johnson as well. Ms. Clark was appointed to the Committee last week, and we have visited. She was 

a State Senator in Massachusetts before winning election to the 

House, and she is very interested in energy and education issues, 

and I look forward to working with her. 

And as I indicated earlier, every Thursday morning at 9:00, we 

have a mandatory attendance meeting, and she probably stopped 

there. Thank you. 
12 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. I will recognize myself for an opening statement and then the Ranking Member. 

The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has jurisdiction 

over civilian science and technology issues at the Department of 

Energy. These areas comprise approximately one third of DOE’s 

budget or over 9 billion dollars. Our jurisdiction includes the DOE’s 

Office of Science which conducts critical research in areas like high 

energy physics, advanced scientific computing, and basic energy 

sciences. Our jurisdiction also includes research and development 

in fossil, nuclear and renewable energy. 

I want to thank our witness, Secretary Moniz, for joining us 

today. We last heard from Dr. Moniz in June, and we want to 

thank him for continuing our tradition of hearing from the DOE 

Secretary on budget priorities. 

Dr. Moniz has a deep knowledge of energy issues, particularly 

the scientific and technical issues that are a focus of this Committee. Although we may disagree on some priorities and on overall 

budget numbers, one thing we can agree on is how critical DOE research has been to securing the United States’ preeminence in 

many scientific fields. 

Scientists at the Department of Energy and in the private sector 

have consistently collaborated to create the most reliable, affordable and secure domestic energy portfolio in the world. 

The technological advancements in oil and gas extraction, and 

particularly hydraulic fracturing, were facilitated in part by DOE. 

These innovative technologies enabled the dramatic shale gas revolution that is transforming our economy. Technological breakthroughs and improved techniques have resulted in exponential increases in energy production. In my home State of Texas, production of oil has jumped from 400 million barrels in 2009 to over 900 

million barrels in 2013. 

The technological leaps in natural gas extraction have resulted 

in increased production and a decrease in natural gas prices. These 

innovative breakthroughs have also helped improve air quality, expand access to affordable electricity and created jobs. This increased production in oil and gas is exciting, but we also need to 

seek a balanced energy portfolio through a strategic approach to 

energy research and development. 

Although the Obama Administration claims it supports a balanced energy portfolio, its budget request shows a different set of 

priorities. For instance, while research and development for fossil 

energy programs remains stagnant, funding for renewable energy 

has increased exponentially. 

Lastly, we need to ensure that American tax dollars are spent 

wisely, and not on duplicative and overlapping programs. At a time 

of tightened budgets, we have to set priorities. Our first focus 

should be basic energy research and development. Breakthrough 

discoveries from basic research will provide the foundation for a secure, affordable and independent energy future. 

The Administration should not pick winners and give subsidies 

to favored companies that promote non-competitive technologies. 

This too often leads to a waste of taxpayer dollars. 
13 

Instead, we should focus our resources on research and development that will produce technologies that will enable alternative energy sources to become economically competitive without the need 

for subsidies. 

This is an exciting time for the United States. It is a time of 

abundant energy resources. The government has a role in promoting scientific discovery in various energy fields, and basic energy research is the stepping stone to our continued success. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has jurisdiction over civilian 

science and technology issues at the Department of Energy (DOE). These areas comprise approximately one third of the DOE’s budget, or over nine billion dollars. 

Our jurisdiction includes the DOE’s Office of Science, which conducts critical research in areas like high energy physics, advanced scientific computing, and basic 

energy sciences. Our jurisdiction also includes research and development in fossil, 

nuclear and renewable energy. 

I want to thank our witness, Secretary Moniz, for joining us today. We last heard 

from Dr. Moniz in June and we want to thank him for continuing our tradition of 

hearing from the DOE Secretary on budget priorities. 

Dr. Moniz has a deep knowledge of energy issues—particularly the scientific and 

technical issues that are a focus of this Committee. Although we may disagree on 

some priorities and on overall budget numbers, one thing we can agree on is how 

critical DOE research has been to securing the United States’ preeminence in many 

scientific fields. 

Scientists at the Department of Energy and in the private-sector have consistently 

collaborated to create the most reliable, affordable and secure domestic energy portfolio in the world. 

The technological advancements in oil and gas extraction, and particularly hydraulic fracturing, were facilitated, in part, by DOE. These innovative technologies 

enabled the dramatic shale gas revolution that is transforming our economy. Technological breakthroughs and improved techniques have resulted in exponential increases in energy production. In my home state of Texas, production of oil has 

jumped from 400 million barrels in 2009 to over 900 million barrels in 2013. 

The technological leaps in natural gas extraction have resulted in increased production and a decrease in natural gas prices. These innovative breakthroughs have 

also helped to improve air quality, expand access to affordable electricity and create 

jobs. This increased production in oil and gas is exciting but we also need to seek 

a balanced energy portfolio through a strategic approach to energy research and development. 

Although the Obama Administration claims it supports a balanced energy portfolio, its budget request shows a different set of priorities. For instance, while research and development for Fossil Energy programs remains stagnant, funding for 

Renewable Energy has increased exponentially. 

Lastly, we need to ensure that American tax dollars are spent wisely, and not on 

duplicative and overlapping programs. At a time of tightened budgets, we have to 

set priorities. Our first focus should be basic energy research and development. 

Breakthrough discoveries from basic research will provide the foundation for a secure, affordable and independent energy future. 

The Administration should not ‘‘pick winners’’ and give subsidies to favored companies that promote non-competitive technologies. This too often leads to a waste 

of taxpayer dollars. Instead, we should focus our resources on research and development that will produce technologies that will enable alternative energy sources to 

become economically competitive without the need for subsidies. 

This is an exciting time for the United States. It is a time of abundant energy 

resources. The government has a role in promoting scientific discovery in the various energy fields. Basic energy research is the stepping stone to our continued success. 

Chairman SMITH. That concludes my opening statement, and the 

gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for hers. 
14 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

for holding the hearing today, and I want to thank the Secretary 

for being here to discuss the proposed DOE budget and for his continued service to our Nation. Over the past year I think that it has 

been proven that the President made a wise choice in selecting the 

Secretary to lead the Department at this critical time our Nation’s 

history. 

Let me start by reminding or sharing with my colleagues here 

today that we have seen how government research can pay off 

when it comes to energy development. DOE-supported research 

was key to the development of high-efficiency gas turbines for coal 

plants, nuclear reactors developed at Federal labs and the directional drilling and the hydraulic fracturing practices that have led 

to the shale gas boom of today. But we should remember that those 

achievements required decades of Federal investments, the overwhelming majority of which was focused on fossil and nuclear energy. I continue to strongly support research to make today’s technologies safer, cleaner and more efficient. But we also have to find 

the greatest value for our investment of taxpayers’ dollars. Today 

it is the emerging energy technology sectors that I believe can most 

benefit from government support. That is where the priorities is set 

by the Fiscal Year 2015 budget requests come in today. 

I am pleased with much of the Department’s budget request for 

applied energy research this year. If adopted, the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, ARPA–E, and the Office of Electricity would all receive a much-needed boost to advance the development of clean energy technologies that will be vital to our national security, our economy and the environment in the decades 

to come. This includes important targeted investments that will 

help place the United States in a position to be a world leader in 

advanced manufacturing related to energy use and generation. 

However, I do have concerns with other areas of the Department’s proposed budget. For example, the Office of Science would 

receive a very minimal increase, less than one percent, which is 

even below the rate of research-related inflation. So this is effectively a cut. As we all know, the Office of Science is the largest 

supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the country, 

and it operates more than 30 national scientific user facilities 

whose applications go well beyond energy innovation. Our Nation’s 

top researchers from industry, academia and other Federal agencies use these facilities to examine everything from new materials 

that will better meet our military’s needs to new pharmaceuticals 

that will better treat disease to even examining the fundamental 

building blocks of the universe. Given this critical role in our Nation’s innovation enterprise, I look forward to having a productive 

discussion about the justification for the Administration’s proposed 

funding for the Office. 

Also, I recognize the Department is continuing to carry out several major demonstration projects using prior year funds to further 

advance our ability to capture and store carbon emissions from 

power plants. I also know that you recently issued a significant 

loan guarantee solicitation for new fossil fuels projects, but I would 

like to be clearer and like a clear explanation for the Department’s 

proposed cuts to the carbon capture and storage research programs. 
15 

Of course, demonstration projects and loan guarantees have a very 

important role in getting new technologies to the marketplace, but 

they are not necessarily replacements for the longer term, higher 

risk research activities. I fully understand that the Administration 

is working on a tough budget environment and that trade-offs and 

compromises have to be made. I look forward to working with you, 

Mr. Secretary, and my colleagues across the aisle to address the 

concerns we have and to work with you to ensure you have the direction, tools and resources you need to keep secure our Nation’s 

energy future. 

Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I want—well, she hadn’t come 

in yet. I wanted to introduce our new Member, but she has not yet 

arrived. So thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Chairman Smith for holding this hearing. I would also like to thank 

Secretary Moniz for being here today to discuss the proposed DOE budget and for 

his continued service to our nation. Over the past year, you have proved that the 

President made a wise choice in selecting you to lead the Department at this critical 

time in our nation’s history. 

Let me start by reminding my colleagues here today that we have seen how government research can pay off when it comes to energy development. DOE-supported 

research was key to the development of high-efficiency gas turbines for coal plants, 

nuclear reactors developed at federal labs, and the directional drilling and hydraulic 

fracturing practices that have led to the shale gas boom of today. But we should 

remember that those achievements required decades of federal investment, the overwhelming majority of which was focused on fossil and nuclear energy. I continue to 

strongly support research to make today’s technologies safer, cleaner, and more efficient, but we also have to find the greatest value for our investment of taxpayer 

dollars. Today it is the emerging energy technology sectors that can most benefit 

from government support. That is where the priorities set by the Fiscal Year 2015 

budget request come into play. 

I am pleased with much of the Department’s budget request for applied energy 

research this year. If adopted, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, ARPA-E, and the Office of Electricity would all receive a much-needed boost 

to advance the development of clean energy technologies that will be vital to our 

national security, our economy, and the environment in the decades to come. This 

includes important, targeted investments that will help place the U.S. in a position 

to be a world leader in advanced manufacturing related to energy use and generation. 

However, I do have concerns with other areas of the Department’s proposed budget. For example, the Office of Science would receive a very minimal increase—less 

than one percent, which is even below the rate of research-related inflation, so this 

is effectively a cut. As we all know, the Office of Science is the largest supporter 

of basic research in the physical sciences in the country, and it operates more than 

30 national scientific user facilities whose applications go well beyond energy innovation. Our nation’s top researchers from industry, academia, and other federal 

agencies use these facilities to examine everything from new materials that will better meet our military’s needs, to new pharmaceuticals that will better treat disease, 

to even examining the fundamental building blocks of the universe. Given this critical role in our nation’s innovation enterprise, I look forward to having a productive 

discussion about the justification for the Administration’s proposed funding for the 

Office. 

Also, I recognize that the Department is continuing to carry out several major 

demonstration projects using prior year funds to further advance our ability to capture and store carbon emissions from power plants. I also know that you recently 

issued a significant loan guarantee solicitation for new fossil fuel projects, but I 

would still like a clearer explanation for the Department’s proposed cuts to carbon 

capture and storage research programs. Of course, demonstration projects and loan 

guarantees have a very important role in getting new technologies to the marketplace, but they are not necessarily replacements for longer-term, higher risk research activities. 
16 

I fully understand that the Administration is working in a tough budget environment, and that trade-offs and compromises have to be made. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, and my colleagues across the aisle, to address the concerns we have and to work with you to ensure you have the direction, tools, and 

resources you need to help secure our nation’s energy future. 

With that I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Let me introduce our 

witness, and he is Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary of the Department of Energy. Prior to his appointment, Dr. Moniz was the 

head of the Department of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology where he was a faculty member since 1973. Previously, Dr. Moniz served as Undersecretary of the Department of 

Energy where he oversaw the Department’s Science and Energy 

programs. From 1995 to 1997, he served as Associate Director for 

Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President. Dr. Moniz received a Bachelor of 

Science degree in physics from Boston College and a doctorate in 

theoretical physics from Stanford University. 

So Dr. Moniz brings both impressive academic credentials and 

practical skills to a very demanding job. Dr. Moniz, we welcome 

you and look forward to your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ERNEST MONIZ, 

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, thank you, Chairman Smith, and Ranking Member Johnson, Members of the Committee. In view of the 

schedule, I will try to shorten my opening statement. 

The top line discretionary budget request for Fiscal Year 2015 as you know is $27.9 billion department-wide which is a 2.6 percent 

increase, which in the current, very constrained budget environment, we take as an endorsement of the importance of our vey key 

missions in energy in science, in nuclear security, in maintaining 

the scientific base that you have both said is so critical to this 

country and of course, meeting our obligations to clean up the Cold 

War mess. 

Our budget is organized around our three undersecretary positions which we testified about last year. We have reorganized including, importantly I think for this Committee, combining the 

Undersecretaries of Energy and Science into one office, and I will 

come back to some of the benefits I believe we are seeing from that, 

a second in nuclear security, and finally, a new focus on management and performance which we consider to be essential. That is, 

improved management and performance essential to successfully 

carrying out our energy, science and nuclear security missions. 

On science and energy, which of course is the main focus today, 

I’d just reiterate that the all-of-the-above energy approach we believe is succeeding as the President said in his State of the Union, 

as you well know, producing more gas, more oil and yet driving 

down carbon emissions. Again, I will forego many of my specific 

comments. Note that the budget request in energy and science is 

$9.8 billion, which is a five percent increase within which we of 

course had to set priorities. 

A few highlights in EERE, I will note a strong commitment to 

advanced manufacturing, Office of Electricity, a commitment to 
17 

leading a multi-program effort on grid modernization and at the 

same time increasing our emergency response capability, which we 

have as a responsibility under FEMA in responses. 

ARPA–E, we think it is working. We propose an increase. Twenty-four start-ups have emerged from ARPA–E, significant private 

capital following up, and I would note its entrepreneurial spirit. 

With each project we have assigned a tech-to-market advisor. 

The Office of Science, again, many initiatives. I will mention 

exascale computing as one that we feel is very important and emphasize once again, this is a cross-cut with about 2/3 of the funding 

proposed in the Office of Science and about 1/3 in NNSA as a collaboration, which I might note is a reversal of the 1990s with 

science now having the lead here. 

This theme of cross-cuts is one that draws upon our reorganization with science and energy coming together. I have mentioned a 

couple already. Others include subsurface science and engineering, 

which cuts across hydrocarbon production, CO2 sequestration, geothermal systems, many issues. Our labs are very excited about this 

kind of integrated approach in the cross-cuts. And another one that 

will be emerging, we have just put our toe in the water this year 

and next year we hope to come back with a much stronger energy 

and water cross-cut which we think is going to be one of the key 

issues in the energy sector as we go forward. 

So nuclear security, again, I will just say there we have an $11.9 

billion proposal, a four percent increase, looking both at reestablishing a fiscally doable approach to our nuclear stockpile, a safe 

and reliable stockpile without testing and advancing our nuclear 

nonproliferation programs, management and performance, and I 

should say Naval reactors, also a commitment there to some key 

developments that have been postponed for a while, Ohio-class replacements for example, spent fuel recapitalization projects. 

Management performance, $6.5 billion in that line, most of the 

budget for EM, and there I will just emphasize this provides an enterprise-wide focus for trying to improve our project management 

performance, and we believe it is paying dividends. One example, 

the waste treatment facility at Hanford, arguably the most complicated facility for clean-up, a new framework that has been 

agreed to with the state as to how we approach—a phased approach, much to work out yet in terms of milestones, et cetera. Secondly, another example in the nuclear security space, the uranium 

processing facility with a new Red Team approach, stick to our 

budget, phase it, key capabilities respected, but stay with budget 

discipline. 

So that, sir, Mr. Chairman, is kind of a few of the highlights, and 

I look forward to our discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Ernest Moniz follows:] 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Secretary Moniz, and I will 

recognize myself for questions. 

My first question goes to what you just mentioned and which the 

Administration has stated many times and that is that they have 

this balanced, all-of-the-above energy strategy. What I would like 

to do is put a chart on the screen for us to take a look at, and this 

chart will show the budget request by the Obama Administration 

since 2010. 
42 
43 
44 

Chairman SMITH. No one can read the fine print here, but let me 

interpret it for you. The blue bars indicate the request by the Administration for alternative forms of energy, and the red is the 

budget request for fossil energy. And it certainly appears to me to 

not be a balanced approach of all-of-the-above energy policy by the 

Administration when you have this kind of discrepancy between 

the money that the Administration is requesting for alternative 

forms of energy versus fossil energy. Would you agree with that assessment? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe that our requests do reflect all-of-the-above approach, and we are committed 

to fossil fuels, nuclear, renewables and efficiency. May I make two 

points? One has already been referred to by the Ranking Member, 

namely that of course, if you look at something like fossil, there are 

enormous resources in the demonstration and deployment arena 

with $6 billion for carbon capture and sequestration—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. Secretary—— 

Secretary MONIZ. —that I—— 

Chairman SMITH. —Moniz, let me pull you back to the actual 

budget request by the Administration, and almost every year, I 

guess in every year, the amount of money requested by the Administration for alternative forms of energy is somewhere between 

three and six times more than for fossil. And to me, just looking 

at that and trying to be factual and objective, and I know you have 

a reputation for that, it sure doesn’t seem like a balanced all-of-theabove energy policy to me. 

Secretary MONIZ. And my second point, after the issue that we 

do have these major other investments that are still in process, but 

I think when we look at EERE, we should really recognize that it 

is two or three really distinct programs. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. Our energy efficiency—— 

Chairman SMITH. You just don’t want to look at my budget chart 

here. 

Secretary MONIZ. No, no. No, sir. 

Chairman SMITH. Oh, okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. No, I would love to see it back up because—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Let us put the budget chart back up. 

Secretary MONIZ. I prefer looking at the—— 

Chairman SMITH. Again, the blue is the alternative, the red is 

the fossil. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. So what I am saying is that blue bar, the 

2.3 billion on the right—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —I think we should relook at it as there is a 

$953 million request for energy efficiency. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. There is a $579 million request for renewable 

energy, and there is a $780 million request for sustainable transportation. And I would argue those are three fairly distinct programs which are in fact pretty comparable with nuclear and fossil 

requests. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. Well, we left out nuclear which was just 

marginal as you know. 
45 

Secretary MONIZ. Nuclear is 863. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. Compared to what we spend for alternative forms of energy, I think there is just no comparison whatever you look at, and that is the disappointment and that is why 

I think that it is not to me, at least, a balanced, all-of-the-above 

energy program by the Administration. 

Let me go to my next question real quick and squeeze it in, and 

this is just again, I don’t know the answer. I hope you do. How 

much funding remains, because we couldn’t tell from your 

website—, how much funding remains for loan guarantees and will 

there be additional loan guarantee this year? 

Secretary MONIZ. On the loan guarantee program, first of all, it 

is about $32 billion that has been deployed, and there is approximately $24 billion of authority left in the 1703 program—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —and approximately $16 billion of authority 

left in the advanced vehicle technology program. 

Chairman SMITH. And do you expect any additional loan guarantees to be approved this year? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, approval is a little bit hard because there 

is a very, very long due diligence process. But we are actively in 

process. As you know, we have the fossil one out. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. We plan to issue another call in the renewables 

and efficiency space, potentially nuclear as well, and just last week 

I met with the auto suppliers to point out that that program remains open. 

Chairman SMITH. Let me go to my last quick question. I hope 

none of those loan guarantees are for offshore wind because on the 

chart that you are going to see here, the cost of offshore wind is 

about 2–1/2 times the cost of on-shore. And not only that, offshore 

wind is by far the most expensive form of energy. And it just seems 

to me that when we are talking about limited dollars and we have 

to set priorities, we wouldn’t want to spend the taxpayers’ dollars 

on a form of energy, which is to say, offshore, not on-shore wind 

that costs so much compared to other forms of energy. Do you want 

to make a comment about that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, first of all, in the spirit of investing in future technologies, our R&D request in renewables has a strong offshore focus. So that is the first point. The second point is if and 

when there are loan applications for offshore wind, we will go 

through the extensive due diligence—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right 

Secretary MONIZ. —to make sure that there is a very high probability—— 

Chairman SMITH. Why put a single dollar in a form of energy 

that is the most expensive form of energy and they cost 2–1/2 times 

as much as on-shore wind? I just don’t understand the rationale. 

If you have unlimited funds, maybe you do something. But if you 

don’t have unlimited funds, why wouldn’t you put the money in the 

most efficient types of energy production? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, this is a portfolio of the whole, the 

R&D portfolio, the loan portfolio. It is about technologies that are 

relatively short term, mid-term and long term. 
46 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. Clearly on offshore wind, it is a fact that the 

current price per kilowatt hour—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —has got a ways to go to become commercially—— 

Chairman SMITH. Well, I don’t see how you ever overcome the 

natural additional costs associated with offshore wind, whether it 

is short, medium or long term. I know you believe in facts. I know 

you believe in data. And I just hope you will spend the taxpayers’ 

dollars on where the most efficient means of producing energy is, 

and the least efficient is offshore wind, at least according to current 

data. 

Thank you for responding to my questions, and the gentlewoman 

from Texas is recognized for hers. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

On your chart, there are several categories here listed, research in 

the blue compared to just one category with the fossil. If we—we 

have been served very well by fossil energy, but if we don’t move 

from fossil energy to all-of-the-above or other alternatives, I want 

to ask the Secretary, are we running the risk of not having enough 

energy for the people on this planet if we just depend on fossil 

fuels? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, obviously fossil fuels are by definition finite. We still have a lot to produce, but I think the real issue—in 

my view, the question is do we have enough atmosphere to accommodate using all fossil fuels, for example, be it in conventional pollution or carbon dioxide? So clearly fuel diversity is very important. 

That includes bringing nuclear, renewables and of course efficiency, 

along with fossil, but our investments are still aimed at fossil for 

a future low-carbon environment. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. And in looking toward the future it 

would make sense then to put some of the investment in all the 

other research areas other than just fossil? 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely, very substantially. These will play 

increasingly important roles. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. Now, I know that 

in a tough budget environment that you have got to make tough 

decisions. But in the Office of Science, can you provide a clearer explanation for the proposed funding level and if there is some discretion about which the Office of Science beyond the Department’s request level can have access to some additional resources? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, it is clear that you have already given the 

most important part of the answer which is it is a very constrained 

environment with essentially flat dollars for discretionary spending 

on both sides of the agenda, civilian and military, and we faced 

both of those constraints I might say. On the civilian side, we had 

to make choices. We believe the science program at $5.1 billion is 

very robust. Could we do more? We could accelerate for example 

our development of new facilities, but I do note in the budget, for 

example, our light sources, our neutron sources, will be very heavily utilized with this budget, and at the same time, moving forward 

to build new capabilities like the Free Electron Laser (FEL) project 
47 

at SLAC, the new accelerator at Michigan State. So I do think we 

will be moving forward. 

We also are recompeting Energy Frontier Research Centers. So 

it will be a strong budget. Clearly, if there were more funds, the 

science enterprise could certainly be even more robust. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. Now, there are times when 

I hear a lot about my colleagues talking about picking winners and 

losers and interfering in the free market by crowding out private 

investment. But frankly, I don’t understand the argument too well. 

So I am hoping you can help. Should the government support all 

research proposals and areas equally or should it prioritize investments based on where we can get the most value for our tax dollars? That is question one. And number two, has the Department 

actually picked a lot of important winners in the past decades such 

as breakthrough of the hydraulic fracturing technology or is that 

a bad thing? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, certainly again we believe in a broad set 

of investments, but within that obviously one is choosing areas 

within budget constraints for greater emphasis at any given time 

depending on the opportunities. You have mentioned hydraulic 

fracturing, for example, where the Department made the initial investments in the ’79-’80 timeframe, and I might say, that was the 

seed, but then it was picked up by a public-private partnership. In 

that case it was a FERC administered surcharge on interstate gas 

transmission, industry-matching funds and a Congressional tax 

credit, all of which came to facilitate developing the 

unconventionals. 

In this budget, for example, we don’t know. Maybe we will have 

the next unconventional revolution. We have put in for $15 million 

to build our methane hydrates program which could be the next 

one in the future. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. The gentleman from 

California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, do you 

believe that we will be soon to have at least a prototype of a small 

modular nuclear reactor that is not based on light water, the light 

water reactor concept? 

Secretary MONIZ. There—by the way, I might say I am certainly 

very interested in small modular reactors, of both light water and 

non-light water types. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Light water is the old technology—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —that we’ve used so far—— 

Secretary MONIZ. So—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —so far. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. So—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Can we get a new type of technology in small 

modular reactors? 

Secretary MONIZ. Certainly we can, and I think it is a direction 

we need to move in. But let me explain that certainly today, as you 

know, the one award that is made and the tentative award that 

has been made are both light-water reactor types. The issue there 

is that—this is at least my view in supporting that as the first 
48 

focus area, is that if one looks at the retirements of current nuclear 

reactors, there have been a few now. But the major retirement 

wave, assuming 60-year lifetimes, really starts in 2030. In talking 

to utility executives who are interested in nuclear, they say we 

have got to make our kind of capital planning decisions in the 

2024, 2025 timeframe. Even on light water reactors, small modular 

reactors, we don’t think we will have the first one out there until 

2022, 2023. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I know and—— 

Secretary MONIZ. So—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —that is what I would like to suggest that 

is an improper priority. The fact is the light water reactors are inherently dangerous. The environmentalists in past decades, they 

were right about that. There are dangerous light water reactors. 

There is no reason for us to be moving forward at a slow pace on 

the development of these small modular reactors that are not light 

water reactors. 

And another area just to call your attention to, the success that 

we have had with stationary, manufactured stationary fuel cells in 

California, that seems to be really taking off. It is an enterprise 

that has a lot of promise, and I understand there is something 

called a turbo fuel cell that actually would make—it is a hybrid 

concept in which we would have the cleanest way of utilizing this 

massive amount of new natural gas that we have. Have you looked 

into that at all, the turbo fuel cell? 

Secretary MONIZ. In fact, if I—maybe one SMR comment, just 

very briefly—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sure. 

Secretary MONIZ. —is that I would say that these new reactors, 

they are integral reactors, and I think they have some excellent 

safety features. On the turbo fuel cell, I can’t say I have looked at 

that directly, but it sounds like something I probably should. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would encourage you to do that. 

Secretary MONIZ. But I think in general, this issue of these hybrid systems are very, very interesting, and this for example could 

be something, if it is moving toward commercialization, that could 

qualify in our fossil loan guarantee program because hybrid systems are—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —called out. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you. I would like to draw your 

attention to that. I appreciate that. 

Secretary MONIZ. I appreciate that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. One last area and that is how much of today’s domestic oil production can be attributed to the Alaskan pipeline? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I don’t know in detail, but of course we 

know that production right now in Alaska has been going down 

somewhat after its peak in the ’70s. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. And right now, the major development, the 

Eagle Ford shale and the Bakken shale—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Well—— 

Secretary MONIZ. —have been the main—— 
49 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But for the last 25 years, the American economy has greatly benefitted, has it not, from the Alaskan pipeline? 

And just to draw your attention again, there was a huge fight over 

the Alaskan pipeline. It almost didn’t get approved, and I think it 

was approved by one vote, one vote, and the Senate I believe carried that project. Without the Alaskan pipeline, our economy would 

have been severely damaged. The well-being of the American people would have been hurt. Now, wouldn’t we expect that if we don’t 

have the Keystone pipeline that the American people will also suffer the consequences? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, on the first point, let me just note that 

the Alaskan pipeline had the feature—of course, it was very—I believe really very important to the American and of course the Alaskan economies. But it had the feature of opening up a resource that 

otherwise had no access to market. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, the environmentalists made all sorts of 

arguments against it at that time. Did any of those arguments 

proven true after the pipeline went into effect and has been providing us the oil? Were any of those dire predictions come true? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I am not aware of dire consequences, although I must say—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, the—— 

Secretary MONIZ. —neither am I completely familiar with the environmental reference completely. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sure, the caribou was going to disappear, the 

tundra was going to melt. We had so many, I mean, Alaska was 

going to be totally changed in its environment. None of those dire 

consequences happened, did they? 

Secretary MONIZ. Not to my knowledge, but again, I am hardly 

expert in that—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So perhaps the Keystone—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Right 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The complaints on the keystone pipeline 

might be of the same kind of charge. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. The gentleman 

from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Moniz, I want 

to thank you for your leadership at the Department. The first thing 

I wanted to raise with you is the Department’s management of the 

Technology Commercialization Fund. My understanding is that for 

two years after it was set-up in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the 

TCF was used to provide technology maturation funds to national 

labs but has been used for other purposes since that time. While 

I prefer the original approach, I think what we need is a forwardlooking plan for how the TCF is going to be operated that will enhance the technology transfer mission at DOE. I think this is something that is very important. 

I have worked with the Committee and DOE to put language 

into the Democratic COMPETES Reauthorization Act that would 

ask DOE for recommended policy changes. I understand work is 

currently ongoing to develop a plan. So I want to thank you for 

your work on this so far and ask you is there any update you can 
50 

give us on how the planning process is going or what DOE’s vision 

for the TCF will be moving forward. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. I think first of all the key is, and 

I will admit to it having been a frustration. The key is filling our 

technology transfer coordinator position with a very, very strong 

and I would say visionary person. We are I believe on the verge of 

finally succeeding in that, and this person will play of course a significant role in addressing your question directly. 

Secondly, we have raised this very directly with our Laboratory 

Policy Council. So with the lab directors and our senior leadership 

in DOE we are specifically developing a plan around technology 

transfer. Again, it has been somewhat impeded by our unfilled position, but that will be corrected I believe within weeks. I feel confident this time that we will get past the finish line. 

And finally, our Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, SEAB, is 

just forming a task force around a variety of laboratory governance 

issues, and technology transfer is one of those. So I think finally 

we are marshalling the resources we need. To be able to answer 

your question, I ask for a little more patience, and we will stay in 

touch. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Okay. Well, I just want to emphasize the importance of that is—I have before, and thank you for that. And anything that we can do up here certainly to help move that forward, 

you know, we will be happy to do that. 

Next question, as you know, several of our national labs, including Argonne, which is in my district, have legacy nuclear waste on 

site. Currently labs are using overhead dollars to manage the 

waste on site, but given that we may not see large budget increases 

in the future, these overhead dollars are precious for the labs. Does 

the Department have any plans to characterize and package the 

waste so that overhead funds could once again go towards furthering the scientific mission of the labs which, as I said, with the 

tight dollars we have right now, this would become increasingly a 

major issue for many labs including Argonne? 

Secretary MONIZ. This remains a challenge, and the entire environmental management issue across the Department is also like 

other things up against these tight budget caps, in this case in particular in the so-called 050 account. Now, for perspective, I believe 

EM has closed out close to 90 percent of the requirements on managing legacy waste, but of course, there is still a lot to do in this 

business, including many of the hardest projects. 

With regard to the labs, all I can say is we are trying to move 

on that. I have to admit, I don’t know the Argonne situation as well 

as some others that are somewhat larger in scale. For example, in 

Los Alamos right now, we have had to move some transuranic 

waste urgently because we are concerned about the next fire, wildfire season coming up, and we are trying to get everything out 

there. 

So we are trying to prioritize and move, and I understand the 

frustration and the challenge on the lab budgets. I might also just 

add, I think with Argonne, as you know, we have just announced 

a new director, and I think it is an outstanding choice. 
51 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. And again, I want to thank you for 

your work, and continued work on these particular issues. With 

that, I will yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. Before I recognize the Chairman Emeritus, Mr. Hall of Texas, I just want to say 

to Members, we are expecting one vote to come up momentarily, 

and if a couple of Members on either side want to go vote right 

now, we are going to continue the hearing during votes, and a 

Member is on the Floor now who will come back and relieve me. 

So that way we will be able to squeeze in perhaps three or four 

Members and their questions. I don’t want everybody to get up and 

leave because we need people to ask questions for the next few 

minutes. But if someone wants to go, then they will be in line immediately after the vote. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. HALL. I still have my full time, right? 

Chairman SMITH. Yes, you do. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you, 

I really do want to thank you for holding this hearing on what is 

probably one of the most important words in the dictionary, especially to youngsters 18 years old, high school, college graduates, 

and that word is energy. Other than prayer or grace, it is probably 

the most important word in the dictionary. 

Mr. Secretary, this is the second opportunity I have had to hear 

from you. Last week you appeared before Energy and Commerce, 

and we are pleased to have you here today to report on science and 

technology priorities at the Department of Energy. 

Mr. Secretary, you are one of the few, maybe I am not putting 

that correct, but you are one who knows something about Section 

999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, right? 

Secretary MONIZ. I do, indeed. 

Mr. HALL. It established an unconventional oil and gas research 

program. Actually, to put it plain, we had energy at the bottom of 

the ocean ultra-deep that we couldn’t get up, and we traded for 

technology to get it up and paid for it with the energy that we got 

up, not at the taxpayers’ expense. And that is what sold it and that 

is what makes it good still today. And it has been battered around, 

hammered, but it is still alive. So I want to ask you some questions 

about it. 

As you know, this program has funded a wide range of very successful projects that have developed new technologies and processes 

to mitigate potential environmental impacts and improve energy 

production efficiency. First, A, let me ask you, what are your 

thoughts on Section 999 program? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I believe the program, as you said, has 

done a very, very good job in terms of its R&D support, very, very 

strong university participation, very strong industry matching 

funds in ultra-deep water, unconventional gas and small producer 

problems. 

Mr. HALL. And how did the program fit in with an ‘‘all-of-theabove’’ strategy that our country needs and this Administration 

claims to support? 
52 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, many of the programs supported and 

those also that we proposed in our natural gas technology section 

are addressing the environmental challenges—— 

Mr. HALL. And I am pleased it stays supported. 

Secretary MONIZ. —of producing—yes. 

Mr. HALL. Can you tell us why the public-private partnership approach worked so well for this program? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I am a big fan of public-private partnerships in general. This program, again, it worked well. I think it 

provided stability because of the revenue stream for the industry 

to feel confident in investing in matching funds for longer term 

projects. 

Mr. HALL. And the real-world research accomplishments of the 

program? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think it was, again, a very, very good program, many very positive things. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Secretary, the fairly recent and dramatic increase 

in natural gas and oil production that has resulted from hydraulic 

fracturing and horizontal drilling have been great for the country 

from an energy supply and employment perspective. These new 

technological and energy advancements bring with them new challenges such as water, and other resources, management, well production, efficiency improvement, minimization of methane emissions and understanding and protecting against other activities. 

What do you think is the best way to understand and manage 

these challenges? And it has been challenged ever since it passed, 

even by governors that signed it. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, in general, I think the programs 

including public support and public-private partnership, especially 

for looking at the environmental impacts of frontier hydrocarbon 

production are critical, and I think there are many mechanisms for 

doing that. 

Mr. HALL. And I will ask you a real quick question. I think I 

know what your answer is. Would it better to have a purely government program or an R&D program that combines public and 

private experience, knowledge and funding? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think, again, in this area in particular, 

I think public-private partnership is the way to go, and that can 

be—our own programs require, for example, matching funds. 

Mr. HALL. Tell us why the public-private partnership approach 

works so well for this program. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, I think it is more general. I think 

the way these work is industry has a major role in defining the research agenda, but then many other players, including universities 

and our national laboratories, are the performers of the research. 

Mr. HALL. I will have other questions that I will send to you, but 

I thank you for it. Would you like to do more cross-cutting programs like this program? 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely. I think cross-cutting programs and 

public-private partnership is a key to some significant progress. 

Mr. HALL. I have 1 second to yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Hall. The gentlewoman from 

Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized. 
53 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Moniz, welcome back, and thank you for your expertise, your hard work at the 

Department of Energy and the wealth of knowledge you bring to 

these hearings. 

I wanted to mention, you said something about a new framework 

for the Hanford clean-up, and as someone who represents the State 

on the other side of the Columbia River, thank you. We look forward to getting updates on how that is going. 

Before I move onto my questions, I want to simply go on record 

as stressing the importance of continued robust funding for the Office of Science. On this Committee as well as on the Education 

Committee, one of the challenges we frequently discuss is how to 

make sure that young people are interested in going into the STEM 

fields. I just had a student in my office who is engaged in postgraduate work on high energy physics, and he was first inspired 

to go into the field when he learned about the LHC and the search 

for the Higgs-Boson particle. That project enjoys contributions from 

a host of partners, including the Department of Energy, and these 

investments are important to advance science but also to inspire 

young people to go into science. So that is a continued investment 

that is important. 

On that note, another important investment is in the STEM 

workforce. It is developing educators who can inspire our youth to 

pursue a career in the STEM fields. So I was a bit concerned that 

the budget for Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists 

within the Department of Energy is facing a decrease, and can you 

briefly comment on what the Department is doing to promote 

STEM learning through other initiatives with that cut? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, thank you. A couple of comments, and I 

will look more carefully at those issues in terms of our distributed 

programs for dealing with teachers, et cetera, because a lot of it 

does happen without explicit budget recognition, for example, 

through our laboratories. But a couple of points: One is I think as 

you know, the Administration is continuing a process of trying to 

consolidate a number of these programs, and so we will be working 

with the new NSF director, for example, trying to make sure that 

the DOE needs are in fact reflected fully. A second point I will just 

make. It is not quite on this, but it is related, is that in this budget, it is not a huge amount of funding, but we want to move forward with the Office of Science as the guiding light to institute perhaps you might call experiment, with some NIH-like traineeships. 

So distinct from fellowships or research assistantships, 

traineeships focused on specific areas of national need for human 

resources relevant to energy. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. Thank you. And I want to move on because I have a couple more questions. I wanted to ask about another budget decrease that is proposed, and that is a 25 percent cut 

for marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy research and development. We have a lot of potential on the coast. There is the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center that has benefitted from the DOE’s water power program. There is some nascent 

technology that holds great economic promise, of course, with the 

exploration of wave energy and the development of wave energy devices. 
54 

So I am a little concerned about that cut, but I saw that the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget was increased. So 

without strong Department of Energy involvement, I am concerned 

that the water power industry won’t progress at the pace they need 

to. So can you please comment on that? And I want a little time 

for one more quick question. 

Secretary MONIZ. Quickly, first of all, the water power office 

budget was put in for an increase, but what happened was there 

was a rebalancing toward things like microhydro and a new stream 

reach, et cetera, with the idea that that may have shorter term 

commercialization. However, let me be completely straightforward. 

In a number of hearings, I have heard this concern over the marine 

kinetic program, and we will be happy to engage that discussion 

and look at—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. 

Secretary MONIZ. —a possible rebalancing. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Great. We would prefer that our businesses don’t 

have to go to Scotland to test their technology. And speaking of foreign competition, I have in my district the U.S. headquarters of 

Solar World, and they have had ongoing concerns about China 

flooding the market with panels. There is a serious concern about 

how that creates a playing field that is not level. So as we continue 

to look at ways to promote the implementation of clean energy 

technology at a price that is cost competitive with traditional fossil 

energy, can you discuss the trade-off between cheaper solar power 

today and the cost of potential dependency on Chinese manufacturers in the future? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, there is some trade-off there, but of 

course, we would like both. As you know, there are trade cases that 

we have brought in the WTO framework, and I believe that we are 

still very, very strong in our supply chain, polysilicon, for example. 

And of course, as we know more generally, manufacturing is coming back to the United States. So we want to help make sure we 

are competitive in multiple dimensions, including I might add, the 

manufacturing initiatives that have broad application. For example, the very first manufacturing hub, we put in funding with the 

Department of Defense to advance 3–D printing. That may have 

implications for solar and other industries down the road. Oh, and 

also, our second one, I am sorry if I may add—then our second one 

that we funded entirely is on power electronics which of course is 

very important for the balance of systems in a solar panel. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Right, and my time is expired. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. The gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Naugebauer, is recognized. 

Mr. NAUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this very important hearing. Secretary Moniz, obviously 

you have been in a number of budget hearings the last few months, 

and you continue to reiterate the importance of an all-of-the-above 

energy program. But I would kind of associate myself with the remarks of the Chairman. You know, an all-of-the-above means, you 

know, an all-of-the-above. And I think that the distribution that 

the Administration is making on research for all-of-the-above is a 

little bit convoluted when you think about the fact that 80 percent 
55 

of the world’s energy will come from fossil fuels, at least through 

2040, according to a recent EIA report. And I would refer back to 

the Chairman’s chart there, it would look like to me if that is the 

future there, that the chart should be changed around where a majority of the money is going to for fossil fuel development because 

that is where the majority of the energy is going to come from. 

With that being said, earlier this year I think the Administration 

announced it was going to conduct a quadrennial energy review to 

examine U.S. energy policy and make recommendations for the future with all of the other energy sources, all-of-the-above energy 

sources on the table. I think this is a good idea. In Texas we already understand the importance of all-of-the-above. As you know, 

Texas leads the Nation in oil and gas and wind energy production. 

What are your expectations for the QER and what do you expect 

to come out of that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. The QER, the Q is of course quadrennial, but we are taking quadrennial kind of one year at a time. 

So this year the focus is specifically on energy infrastructure, the 

transmission, storage and distribution of energy. That is electricity. 

It is also fuels. So there is going to be two major focus areas. It 

will be around modernization of the grid taking into account all the 

threats that we see, extreme weather, cyber, physical threats, geomagnetic, infrastructure interdependencies. It will also look at 

fuels, infrastructure resilience with particularly focused on different regions because the regional challenges, the bottlenecks 

there are quite different. For example, we have seen in New England this winter the natural gas issues. We have seen in Upper 

Midwest and actually elsewhere as well, including going much further south, things like the propane issues which were big infrastructure issues. We have the oil by train issues. So this will be 

the focus this year. At the end of the year we intend to have this 

first chunk done that will then recommend whatever policy steps 

that we believe should be taken. And that will be—it is a public 

discussion, I should say, that is—tomorrow the first public meeting 

on the QER will be held here at the Capitol, in fact, and then we 

will be going out around the country. 

Mr. NAUGEBAUER. Do you have an outline of the full scope of it? 

And obviously you were talking about specific areas here. And 

what I heard you saying is this is the first step. So is there—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. NAUGEBAUER. —an overall model or outline of what you intend to review through this process? 

Secretary MONIZ. So tomorrow there will be discussion about 

where we are going with this and the kinds of information we are 

bringing together. I might say that we have consolidated a number 

of policy activities in the Department, supportive of this QER, and 

built up analytical capacity because a lot of this is going to require 

some serious analysis. So we will discuss that, and this year’s 

agenda is what I said. For the following years, we have ideas but 

to be perfectly honest, we are looking here at a long-range plan as 

a series of short-range plans. We are heavily focused on this infrastructure issue. 
56 

Mr. NAUGEBAUER. So obviously infrastructure is important, but 

what assurances can you give me that during this review that it 

will be an all-of-the-above approach? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, as I have said, the two major focal areas 

will be electricity with all forms of supply which the grid must deal 

with including, I could say in Texas, you know, long-range renewables with base-load plants. But like I said, the other major focus 

is going to be on the liquid fuels infrastructure with a regional 

focus. 

Mr. NAUGEBAUER. I look forward to, you know, you giving us an 

update on the—— 

Secretary MONIZ. We would be happy to. Also, tomorrow there 

will be the public meeting, but we could provide, you know, some 

briefings if that is helpful. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. [Presiding] Thank you very much. And now 

Dr. Bera from California. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

coming back to the Committee, Mr. Secretary. If I recall when you 

were last here, we talked a little bit about atmospheric carbon and 

the amount of time it takes to degrade atmospheric carbon. I am 

trying to search my memory. Did you say 4,000 years roughly? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, but I said centuries. 

Mr. BERA. Centuries. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Mr. BERA. Okay, but still a significant amount of time. Once 

the—— 

Secretary MONIZ. A long time. 

Mr. BERA. —carbon is captured in the atmosphere, it certainly 

takes a long time to degrade it. We have also, you know, in much 

of the debate within this body as well as we talk about climate 

change, much of what we discuss is how to mitigate adding additional carbon to the atmosphere, and I think that is where some 

of the discussion has gone. In addition, when we talk about sequestration, much of what we are talking about is how we capture and 

do soil-based sequestration. That is accurate I believe as well. 

Secretary MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. BERA. Within the DOE budget, though, are we also researching potential opportunities to do atmospheric degradation in terms 

of research and so forth? I would be curious about that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, there are activities going on like beneficial use of CO2. There are not that many opportunities at the 

scale that one needs. One example would be our sunlight-to-fuels 

hub which is an issue of using light, CO2 and water to produce hydrocarbon fuels for use. That is one example. But I can’t say that 

that is going to be commercial next year. 

Mr. BERA. But some of the challenges that we potentially face is 

at some juncture atmosphere carbon that is already captured there 

is not going to degrade for centuries. We will have a challenge, and 

there probably is some irreversible point where—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Right, and in general—again, these are major 

scientific challenges, not easy, but a very important part of the 

portfolio because certainly if you compare that with some of the 

ideas about what is called often geoengineering, like putting sul-
57 

fates into the atmosphere, those have consequences that I don’t 

think we understand. 

Mr. BERA. Absolutely. Switching over to kind of the scientific 

computing side and so forth, you know, Intel is a major presence 

in my district and has been obviously very involved in supercomputing. We have, within this body, talked about if some of the advanced scientific computing and challenges of managing big data as 

we accumulate more data, how we sort through that data, how we 

use it. You know, I am a physician by training. Certainly there are 

ways for us to use it to better manage patients and disease. I 

would like to have you comment on the DOE’s, you know, supercomputing priorities here. You touched on the exascale program 

and so forth. I would love to hear your comments. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. Again, we consider this to be a very 

high priority and very much in line with the historic contributions 

that DOE has made in leading high-performance computing. So our 

plan would be to achieve exascale early, very early in the next decade. I want to make clear that we don’t view this as a race to how 

many flops as opposed to generating the technologies. For example, 

energy management is a critical one if we are going to make the 

next stage. But resilience of computers, how do you do the algorithmic architectures, a whole set of questions that are very fundamental as we go to this next scale. 

So we are going to push that and drive it through an application 

vision to science issues, to energy issues and of course, to national 

security issues. Our nuclear weapons program has always relied 

upon this very heavily. 

Mr. BERA. Great. You also touched on the importance of the public-private partnership and your emphasis there and the Office of 

Technology Transfer. Just given your academic background, what 

are some things that we could do within this body to help facilitate 

that greater partnership between the private sector and academia, 

particularly our public universities? 

Secretary MONIZ. With regard to the computing specifically? 

Mr. BERA. Well, computing but also the whole area of technology 

transfer. 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. Well, I think the Committee could certainly advance these kinds of programs that are viewed in particular with having some degree of stability over time. That is very 

important I think for industry-making commitments, okay? Secondly, I think reinforcing, within balance, some of these group 

projects. Like in the Office of Science, I will mention the Energy 

Frontier Research Centers. I think this has been a terrific program. 

It is construct, is engaging the science community, getting 10, 12 

people together on an important project over five years, and those, 

I know from my own experience, where MIT had, in my previous 

life, I want to make it clear, had two of those. They really attracted 

industrial partners in there. 

So those are the kinds of things that I think, in terms of how 

it is structured, would be very helpful. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Thank you. I will yield. 

Mr. NAUGEBAUER. Thank you very much, Doctor, and just for the 

record, when I was asking my questions I mentioned that nuclear 

energy is inherently more dangerous. I meant of course light water 
58 

reactors are inherently more dangerous than the alternatives that 

we are now looking at. 

Secretary MONIZ. That is how I interpreted it. 

Mr. NAUGEBAUER. Good. Thank you very much. And now, Dr. 

Buschon? 

Mr. BUSCHON. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for 

being here. In the wake of the EPA’s new power plant emission 

proposals, there has been a lot of talk about CCS, but there are 

other clean-coal technologies that will be vital to our Nation’s energy future. It seems like in our rush to CCS, it looks like we 

skipped over or ignored other potential technological breakthroughs. For example, one of the most interesting is the idea of 

supercritical CO2 technologies where carbon dioxide is used as a 

working fuel to promote high thermal efficiencies. DOD is currently 

investing in these technologies for the use in both nuclear and renewable power applications. However, DOE is not exploring the 

use of the technology for coal applications. Can you discuss the application of supercritical technologies to increase efficiency and reduce emissions? 

Secretary MONIZ. Actually, I really appreciate your raising that 

because that is another one of these cross-cutting examples that I 

mentioned earlier. We see this very much as applicable to coal as 

well. I know the specific coal budget request is small, but that is 

because we have—for various reasons, including recent history, nuclear energy is playing the lead role in that as we move to a demo. 

But we have a group which includes fossil and nuclear and renewables, especially because of the geothermal applications, and the 

demonstration project being done will be equally applicable to coal 

and to nuclear. 

Mr. BUSCHON. Okay. That is good to know. And looking beyond 

power generation applications, are there other opportunities for 

coal-to-liquids R&D? What is the status of those type projects, trying to find alternative ways to use coal? 

Secretary MONIZ. So we are evaluating—without saying too 

much, we are in due diligence right now in terms of a potentially 

large project involving coal-to-liquids and renewables. I can’t guarantee that is going to come out the other end, but there is a due 

diligence going on right now on that. 

Mr. BUSCHON. Okay. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [PRESIDING]. Thank you very much. And I 

think we have now Ms. Edwards from Maryland. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I have a question actually about the authorization that is coming up for the Office of Science. We probably 

should be doing that in the next few months, and I think it presents quite an opportunity for us because there is a lot of support 

across the aisle for the activities that are carried out by the Office. 

But I do think that for some of my colleagues, one of the challenges 

is around the environmental research portfolio. So I wonder if you 

could describe in more detail how the Office of Science Environmental Research programs help to meet the missions of the Department of Energy, including the clean-up of legacy waste sites and 

provide a unique opportunity or contribution to the portfolio of environmental research carried out by other agencies and what those 
59 

relationships with the other agencies are and how they are coordinated with other relevant agencies and programs. 

Secretary MONIZ. I will certainly respond to that, but maybe we 

can provide you as well a fuller response. That is a very expansive—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Sure. 

Secretary MONIZ. —question. So you are referring I think to the 

BER program specifically? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. And of course, we have a very, very strong biology-related program there as you know with a strong history for 

example in the human genome project in fact in getting that kicked 

off. So today we are not—first, let me make it very clear. We are 

not involved in the the human health questions directly as opposed 

to using advanced genomics and proteomics, et cetera, to address 

a set of energy-related and environmental-related clean-up questions. 

I might add that there are some other discussions that have been 

initiated with us with NIH asking us about capabilities in our laboratories that might be useful for the brain initiative. So that is in 

the very early stages but could be something interesting. That is 

based mainly on our computational and sensor capacities. 

Finally, of course, that program is the center for what is a major 

part of the climate change modeling program, a major engine for 

doing that and combining it with our large-scale computational capabilities, getting to finer and finer spatial resolution. 

Ms. EDWARDS. What are the other agencies with which you work 

in the area of climate research? 

Secretary MONIZ. There is a broad set of agencies. I probably 

can’t name them all, but NOAA for example would be a very important one, National Science Foundation another one, I am guessing—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. What about NASA? 

Secretary MONIZ. —the Interior. 

Ms. EDWARDS. What about NASA? 

Secretary MONIZ. NASA? Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Very important, NASA. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Can you tell me more specifically about the work 

that you are doing around climate that relates to NASA and the 

importance of the connection between the two agencies? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think it is very complementary. I mean, 

NASA of course has the very strong observational capabilities, providing data, et cetera, and the Department of Energy I would say— 

you know, in the end our very major capacity is around high-performance computing and developing let us call it the software 

structures that one needs to analyze. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Would you be comfortable with losing the responsibility for at least the climate part of the research portfolio because other agencies do similar things? Would it be okay to just 

deep-six the energy portfolio? 

Secretary MONIZ. No. First of all, I think the Department of Energy has the greatest capacity in this area. It would be very hard 

to replace given again our high-performance computing capabilities. And secondly, it is so directly connected to the energy system. 
60 

So I think the Department remains the place where that can be 

most effectively carried out. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Do you think—is there work that you are doing 

that you believe might be duplicative in other agencies? Have you 

found that in the relationship that you have, say, with NOAA, 

NASA, NSF? 

Secretary MONIZ. So I think there has been now functioning for 

quite a long time the Interagency Climate Change Group that is 

specifically dedicated to having complementary programs executed 

but come together into a hole without gaps. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So you don’t think there is any duplication of effort in that area? 

Secretary MONIZ. I would say nothing material. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [PRESIDING]. Thank you. Mr. Posey? 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your attendance today and more particularly for directly 

answering every question that was sent your way. We really appreciate that one. Can you give us a current status on the supply inventory and availability of plutonium 238 and any other nuclear 

fuel that may be needed for spaceflight? 

Secretary MONIZ. Actually this is one where I am going to have 

to I think respond for the record, to be honest, I am not up to date 

on the plutonium 238 situation. I have to be honest about that. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. But we will respond for the record—— 

Mr. POSEY. Within the next 10 days? 

Secretary MONIZ. I am sorry. We will respond to you quickly. I 

am sorry. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. Will to you directly, yes, sir. 

Mr. POSEY. Well, the follow-up, you know, how much time does 

it take to produce the PU–238 and the costs associated with it? 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. We will respond on that as well. Obviously there have been issues historically of Russia being a principal 

supplier. 

Mr. POSEY. You know, is a thorium reactor currently being employed or being considered as an alternative means to produce PU– 

238 from uranium 233? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, sir. We certainly are not engaged in that, 

and we have no thorium program that I know of at least today. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Mr. POSEY. Do you know of any other feasible, timely or cost-efficient alternative means of producing PU–238? 

Secretary MONIZ. Again, I think we are going to have to give you 

a comprehensive response to all of these plutonium 238 questions, 

and we will do that promptly. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Are you aware of any stockpile of U–233 in our 

national inventory that could be used to do PU–238 which is currently being considered for destruction? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, well, we certainly have U–233 particularly 

at Oak Ridge. It is not in a form right now that I think is usable, 
61 

and in fact we are moving towards the disposal of a number of capsules that contain U–233. 

Mr. POSEY. Could you expand upon that a little bit? Why we are 

disposing of it? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, it has been declared as a waste form. It 

has now been transferred to our environmental management program for disposal. We have not seen a use for it or projected use 

for it, particularly given the difficulties that would be entailed in 

terms of purifying it. 

Mr. POSEY. Yeah, and of course, that was one of my previous 

questions. Processing 233 and the 238 and—I mean, I am kind of 

alarmed. I was hoping you were going to say no, there are none 

being considered. What we have, you know, we are guarding with 

our lives because it is so hard to produce, it is so hard to get and 

of course, it is hard to bring it to the next level as well. But I think 

this is real key to human or any space exploration and I would like 

to know as much about that as soon as possible—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. 

Mr. POSEY. —as you know about it or can find out about that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. No, I will get people on it today. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you very much. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [PRESIDING]. Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today. I had a question about algae. I understand that the Department of Energy, Office of Science has supported fundamental science research on biomass including $600 

million since 2007 for the three Bioenergy research centers which, 

according to the website, provide the fundamental science to underpin a cost-effective, advanced, cellulosic biofuels industry. We certainly support the work that is being done in that area and agree 

that that is important. 

I would just encourage you to expand the Office’s portfolio to include research on algae. I am sure that there are many Members 

of Congress, including of course other Members of the bipartisan 

Congressional Algae Caucus which I co-chair who would appreciate 

your support for algae research in the DOE’s Office of Science, and 

I wondered if you had any thoughts on that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I will certainly get together with Pat 

Dehmer here and see what we are doing and what more might be 

done. I will note that there are other programs engaged here. For 

example, our work with DOD and USDA in our tri-agreement, I believe two of the four projects certainly involve oils in algae. 

Mr. PETERS. Right, but I—— 

Secretary MONIZ. But I will check that. 

Mr. PETERS. We certainly appreciate your participation in that 

and support that effort and the funding for it. And I also wanted 

to applaud the Department’s attention to carbon capture utilization 

and storage research and wondered if you had any thoughts on 

what kind of technologies would be looked at for CO2 utilization. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, today the principal utilization approach 

is enhanced oil recovery. In fact, we are producing about 300,000 

barrels a day today from CO2-enhanced oil recovery where that 
62 

CO2 is mostly natural. So as that ramps up, there is a potential 

for about 600 megatons of CO2 per year for enhanced oil recovery 

if the rather loose projections hold out, which can only come from 

carbon capture. 

Mr. PETERS. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. So that is the principal one right now, just 

known—— 

Mr. PETERS. Just again, how much did you say? 

Secretary MONIZ. The potential is for 600 megatons of CO2 per 

year which would produce about 3 million barrels a day, and 

roughly speaking it is a half-a-ton of CO2 per barrel of oil produced. 

So that could be substantial utilization. Then there are the others 

which are still in much earlier stages. I mentioned one earlier, sunlight-to-fuels, you know, sunlight plus CO2 plus water going to 

fuels. That is an example of but much more research is obviously 

required. 

Mr. PETERS. Right. Great. I appreciate that, and that is also very 

important. Finally, on advanced nuclear reactors, in Fiscal Year 

2014, Congress gave the Department $12 million for advanced reactor concepts for an industry-only competition, four times the 

amount you had in the previous year. And I hope that means that 

you could make some grants as high as $4 or $5 million that would 

attract competitors. Maybe the Department is looking into develop 

the whole reactor as opposed to individual technologies. Do you anticipate that the Department would be able to communicate with 

American companies along those lines? 

Secretary MONIZ. I believe there is communication along those 

lines, but I will get back and talk with Mr. Lyons and see if we 

can’t sharpen it up. 

Mr. PETERS. Okay. Super. And again, Mr. Secretary, thank you 

very much—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. 

Mr. PETERS. —for your fine work and for being here today. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [PRESIDING]. Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Secretary 

Moniz. I appreciate your very important work. I appreciate you 

being here as well. As all of us, I understand the tough constraints 

you are dealing with with the budget, so it is more important than 

ever that we understand the priorities the President is putting forward. 

As you know, I have been fully supportive of basic scientific research and recognize that the Federal Government must do this. I 

also recognize our lab systems put us in a position to that while 

also making our user facilities available to other agencies, universities and even business. Many of these facilities run 24 hours a 

day and have to turn away researchers. This also ensures that we 

keep the brain power in America to make our next game-changing 

discovery right here and as soon as possible. 

Would you say that the President prioritizes applied research, 

demonstration and deployment over basic research? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah, well, I believe it is a very balanced view, 

and the President has stated many times that we understand that, 

yeah, our basic research enterprise ultimately is what underpins 
63 

all that we do. Then of course one has to make the difficult budget 

balancing. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yeah, it does come back to where priorities are. 

When I see a budget that has a less than one percent increase in 

the Office of Science, I can understand that certainly is a product 

of our budgetary constraints. But when you look throughout the 

rest of the DOE budget, it is easy to see that it is not the case. 

This is misplaced priorities according to my reading. Many programs for favored industries are getting a large budgetary increase. 

EERE received a 22 percent increase which includes funding for 

offshore wind demonstration, as the Chairman talked about. 

When I think of technological development, I see basic scientific 

research as the horse that is pulling the cart. Whenever we have 

a budget that is putting strains on our ability to do this work while 

paying to rush out technologies which may or may not yet be viable 

on the open market, I am worried that we are putting the cart before the horse, and to make matters worse, we are starving the 

horse while we are at it. This will have long-term impacts on our 

ability to innovate and be a competitive Nation, I fear. 

To better understand what the President is looking for so we can 

do this kind of work, can you broadly explain to us what you will 

need to see from the particle physics project prioritization panel, or 

P–5, report? I know we are still awaiting the report next month. 

So I am not asking you about any specific projects you might endorse. This is just so we have a better understanding of how the 

Administration goes about its prioritization process. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. Thank you. I am looking forward very 

much to the P–5 report at the end of May and how HEPAP deals 

with it, High Energy Physics Advisory Panel. What I have said to 

the group last year and to Nigel, the director at Fermilab. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes, doing a great job. 

Secretary MONIZ. Terrific guy. To be honest—well, first of all, let 

me say the discovery science, particle physics, and others of the 

basic sciences, are very, very strongly committed to. The high-energy physics community, I have made no secret of it and they agree 

that for quite some time it has been very difficult to get a coherent 

kind of buy-in of the community, as least to some of the major commitments. I am very much hoping that that is what we will see in 

May, and with that, I think we can all do some work. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I hope to, too. And I am optimistic from that. 

The P–5 report is vital for our direction in physics, and looked at 

it as similar to the decadal survey for NASA which our Committee 

has had hearings on. 

What worries me about this budget is the mixed signals we are 

sending to the scientific community which is becoming increasingly 

international. This is just one example that is emblematic of the 

budget as a whole. The community understands their budgetary 

constraints, and they are trying to do this in a responsible fashion. 

But in the lowest budgetary scenario, they were told to expect flat 

line funding for three years as the President has used basic research as I see it as a piggy bank for other priorities. The HEP line 

was cut. While we continue to cite the need for community to rally 

behind a plan, how does the Administration justify the moves that 

are disincentivizing the community to do so? The international 
64 

community continuously says they just need to see some semblance 

of long-term stability. What are they supposed to think when the 

report comes out but we couldn’t give the people crafting the report 

an honest budget scenario to work with? When we have projects 

engineering and design funding for project cuts, aren’t we sending 

the wrong message? We have even cut accelerator R&D funding, 

even though it was vital for the LCLS upgrades DOE is citing as 

a major accomplishment. I just want to see a cohesive message that 

our science community can work with, that can have that confidence, that their work is important that we recognize and it is a 

priority. Again, I appreciate your work. I appreciate your openness, 

certainly to be here and to meet with me, to meet with others. I 

know these are challenging times, but I just want to express my 

concern and I think the concern that others around the world are 

feeling with the uncertainty there and specifically to our scientific 

community. 

My time is expired. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. Before I recognize 

the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, for some comments. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to announce the arrival of the new Member which 

we acknowledged earlier, Ms. Katherine Clark, from Massachusetts. Welcome 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. We do welcome the new Member. Thank you. 

Representative Clark, both the Ranking Member and I took your 

name in vain while you were at the earlier meeting, but we do look 

forward to your membership in this Committee and your participation and the interest and expertise you bring as well. Thank you. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back, 

Secretary Moniz. I want to first thank you for taking a trip out to 

Livermore, California, and visiting Lawrence Livermore and 

Sandia National Laboratories. The employees there greatly appreciated it, and in this time of sequestration and especially after the 

government shut-down, it was a boost in morale to have our Secretary of Energy come visit the scientists who are working at those 

laboratories to keep us safe but also to move us forward in our energy security pursuits. 

I want to also briefly mention the Neutralized Drift Compression 

Experiment II, or NDCX–II, which is a heavy ion fusion and basic 

science research tool. I am aware that earlier there were problems 

with standing up this project, but I am very pleased to hear that 

under a new management team at the Lawrence Berkeley lab and 

a peer-review path forward, that there is now potential to leverage 

the Federal investment already under way and for prodution of excellent science. And so I would like to commend the Department for 

working with NDCX–II to explore the benefits of furthering this operation. 

But as far as the budgeting goes, I want to talk about NIF, the 

National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore. And I was 

pleased to see NIF was spared from further drastic cuts, and I hope 
65 

you and the President will continue to provide adequate funding so 

that the groundbreaking science there can be achieved. And I 

wanted you to tell me your plans as to how the Office of Science 

can work more closely with NIF as we seek ignition. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. And by the way, let me just say the 

visit was terrific, and it is always fun to be at a lab, and the Livermore visit was great. I just want to note that it wasn’t only me who 

went but my entire Secretary of Energy Advisory Board as well. 

And many of them had never seen NIF and were suitably impressed at its scale for sure. 

NIF is doing some very important work. It is providing very important contributions to our stewardship program. And we are 

making sure that we preserve at least some degree of some of the 

basic science work at NIF as well as at our other high-energy density facilities which are really kind of a three-some. NIF is by far 

the biggest but the Z machine and the Omega machine as well. 

In terms of the Office of Science, I think the first issue is, to be 

honest, until the ignition is achieved, then clearly the ideas of 

going into the fusion direction I think would be viewed as kind of 

premature. So I think that would be a very important milestone. 

As you know, progress towards that milestone is being made. Some 

substantial progress was made only in the last few months. We 

have to get there. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And we look forward to having you out there 

when we reach ignition which we hope is soon—— 

Secretary MONIZ. That will be a good day. 

Mr. SWALWELL. —rather than later. Also, I wanted to mention 

something that came to light yesterday, and I asked Members, 

Committee witnesses at the Homeland Security Committee hearing 

about this. We learned that just recently Al Qaida in their magazine, Inspire, used a picture of SFO airport and a message encouraging its members to detonate an explosive device. And it is not 

clear as to whether that was directed at SFO airport in the Bay 

Area or if it was just a general message. But it has raised concerns 

and reminds us that we remain under attack from Al Qaida, that 

they do seek to carry out a terrorist attack. And Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories both do great work in protecting against the next attack. And I wanted to know how this 

budget will reflect our priorities of continuing to have our scientists 

not just do nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship but also work to 

prevent a terrorist attack and support law enforcement efforts. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. The nonproliferation budget, unfortunately, was reduced again within our constraints. Let me just 

stay without going into great detail that the stockpile stewardship 

plan that was submitted last year was budgetarily unrealistic, and 

we had to get that back under control while preserving our commitment to the stockpile basic plan, without going into detail, but 

what is relevant to this is that when we went through the process 

with the National Security Council and the Department of Defense, 

we came to a budget that we felt even though it reduced by over 

$1 billion the life extension program in the Fiscal Year 2017, Fiscal 

Year 2020 period by stretching out some programs consistent with 

military requirements, we just needed that increase in the weapons 

program; and then with the constrained Fiscal Year 050 budget, 
66 

neither nonproliferation nor environmental management could 

come in at the same budget. Still a strong program, and the labs 

will be critical in securing nuclear materials—sources. 

Secondly, we are—in fact, right now there is an Academy study 

and there is other work that we are doing looking at streamlining 

what is currently called—a word I dislike to be perfectly honest— 

Work for Others, because they aren’t others. They are part of our 

team, like the Department of Homeland Security. And as you 

know, Livermore, in particular, is probably our lead lab for working 

on the Homeland Security issues. 

So this is going to be a major focus, and again, we are balancing 

budget priorities within a fixed budget. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. The gentleman from 

Arizona, Mr. Schweikert, is recognized. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, as 

you have heard all the Members speak, we all have sort of our individual areas of interest or expertise. So I don’t mean this to be 

more of an ethereal conversation, more to educate me. When you 

have so many priorities coming at you and we come at you and say, 

all right, this is basic research, this is applied research, this is for 

commercialization. How do you arbitrage those differences but also 

how do you sort of walk through and make your decision making? 

You know, just as the conversation we were just having we are all 

incredibly hopeful one day we will hit that moment of ignition and 

control and, you know, the Holy Grail is there. But if you are not 

there, you don’t prioritize hope, you prioritize data. Tell me your 

process. How do you go through that sort of triage? 

Secretary MONIZ. I wish it were completely organized, but I will 

do my best. First of all, as we have discussed here and on the 

stockpile, et cetera, as you know the Department of Energy has a 

pretty diverse set of responsibilities. But what I want to emphasize 

is the common theme is, and I will be immodest for the Department in saying, the Department is a science and technology powerhouse, and that is its fundamental core capability, and those are 

the capacities that are being applied to energy, to basic science, to 

nuclear security. 

Now, in each of those areas, and we did have our strategic plan 

put out last week, we try to keep focused on our major objectives. 

What is it that we have to accomplish in each of those major mission areas? We try to maintain a balance in terms of near, intermediate term and long-term focus. Generally speaking, the longterm focus when it comes to let us say, energy technologies, are 

probably more modest investments but very important to see something. An example I mentioned earlier is that we thought it was 

very important, even though it was only $15 million, to emphasize 

in the fossil energy budget, ramping up a program on methane hydrates. That is the analogy of I think what the Department did in 

1979 that led to unconventional gas today. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But what I am somewhat chasing is do you 

have a particular methodology? You know, do you sit down with a 

decision tree and say here is how we are going to do our priorities? 
67 

Secretary MONIZ. So the way it works is that the fundamental 

build-up, it starts bottom-up with our programs, and they will now 

essentially be starting the Fiscal Year 2016 bottom-up build-up. 

That is within guidance that we give in terms of general set of priorities. They come back with their programs. We kind of aggregate 

them at the undersecretary level. So in this case the energy and 

science programs come together. Frankly, to be technical about it, 

in that process, they are assigned budget targets, and the Office of 

the Secretary maintains a reserve, if you like, to—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay, so we—— 

Secretary MONIZ. —meet priorities. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay. So we have our budget priorities, and 

then our technology priorities as coupled with that, I am trying to 

systematize it in my head. And within that, do you rank saying, 

okay, this is basic research, this is applied? How does sort of the 

matrix work out? 

Secretary MONIZ. We are—again, it is imperfect, but we are looking at making sure we have a reasonable balance which certainly, 

for science, includes recognizing the critical role that we have in 

underpinning especially the physical science establishment. So we 

have to look at our user facility, our big budget item. That is a responsibility to the entire science community. So that is a very high 

priority. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Now, how much flexibility do you actually have 

to pivot? And I don’t know if this experience has actually happened 

where you have developed a line item, it is moving forward, and 

then all of a sudden in the literature, there is a private lab or some 

university lab that has actually leaped ahead of what you were 

going after, the ability to switch and move those resources somewhere else you consider either more promising or more worthy. Do 

you have that level of flexibility to make those decisions midstream? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, certainly over a period of a year or two. 

Now, in terms of a more rapid response, that depends in terms of 

how the appropriations language is written in the sense that, you 

know, obviously it directs us. But in the Office of Science I think 

there is a fair amount of flexibility in that regard, less so in some 

other parts of the Department. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And the last question. Mr. Chairman, forgive 

me. I know I am going a little long. Part of my reason for my curiosity of building sort of that decisions matrix is we know we often 

get tugged with the current popular discussion or the current technological folklore. And sometimes that is just noise in the decisionmaking process and was just curious how you screen that out. 

Secretary MONIZ. First of all, let me say, I would be happy to 

find some time to sit down so that we might learn something also 

from your ideas in terms of how we can manage this kind of portfolio balancing. But let me just say that fundamentally, it is using 

our judgment on portfolio balancing in multiple dimensions. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. That is really the core principal. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But in many ways is done through judgment, 

not necessarily sort of a—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah, there is no—— 
68 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. —hard—— 

Secretary MONIZ. —quantitative scoring. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right, and it is not just me. It involves a collective discussion. We have open discussions, and people—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Look, I know you have—— 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay, sorry. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Schweikert. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you for your patience. 

Secretary MONIZ. But we can follow up if—— 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey, is recognized. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask you a 

couple of questions about the coal because I know that that is an 

area where there is some, you know, disagreement on. In your 

opinion, has coal gone through the problems that it is going 

through because of what is going on in the market or because of 

what is going on within the Agency as far as the policy direction 

in which the agency, you know, sees coal? Could you kind of touch 

on that a little bit? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, over these last several years, as we know 

there has been a substantial substitution of natural gas for coal, 

and I would say that was principally driven by the market in terms 

of the low gas prices. Going ahead, there will be issues, for example, of how the EPA rules turn out, let us say, for new coal plants 

where, as you know, partial CO2 capture is in the proposed rule. 

Mr. VEASEY. Also, another coal question. I have heard that some 

people say we have as high as a 200-year supply of coal just in our 

country. Can coal be made clean enough to where it is a cleanerburning fuel like the other things that we are looking at as far as 

renewables, natural gas, et cetera? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, of course, first of all, in terms of conventional pollutants, we have done a lot to clean that up as you know 

over the last decades. The challenge now is carbon dioxide, and 

there we have our eight major demonstration projects right now to 

pursue that. I personally believe there is nothing in the science 

that suggests that CCS or CCUS will not work at substantial scale, 

and then this question of what are we going to do in terms of CO2

policy because clearly for a coal plant, it is not going to be less expensive to capture than not capture, but the question is, in the 

competition, we expect coal to have a marketplace role in a low-carbon environment through the successful higher efficiency of coal 

plants and CCUS. 

Mr. VEASEY. If I could very quickly switch over to methane and, 

you know, as it pertains to natural gas in particular, you know, 

there has been some concern about, you know, the release of methane, you know, at the wells. What do you think can be done more 

to help ease that? Because obviously that everyone says that the 

natural gas is a much more cleaner-burning fuel. But with the 

methane being released, obviously that can create problems. And 

if you can capture the methane and stop it from releasing, obviously it would make it even more clean and more efficient. So can 

you just talk on that a little bit? 
69 

Secretary MONIZ. Sure. There is by the way an interagency 

methane group that is working, DOE, EPA, Department of Interior, 

USDA. There has been a lot of progress in most places in capturing 

methane from production because of course it is a valuable product, 

and in some cases it is also driving the replacement of large diesels 

to drive the hydraulic fracturing by natural gas engines which, 

again, are much cleaner, and so it helps the air quality in the production zones. 

We have a challenge in many places on the production side, like 

in the Bakken shale where the infrastructure fundamentally isn’t 

there to move the gas out and so they are flaring a lot of it. But 

the state has made a strong commitment to lower that. 

But what I want to emphasize, and frankly it is a strong focus 

of the Department of Energy, is that—and more data are needed. 

But the methane issue has probably been overly focused on the 

production well as opposed to the end-to-end system. So the whole 

issue of the gathering, the transportation and the distribution systems for natural gas is an issue. 

We hosted a multi-stakeholder workshop, the first of five that we 

will have, on methane emissions recently involving industry, labor, 

environmental groups, et cetera. And it was very interesting. There 

was a lot of convergence there, and it is clear. One of the big challenges is, and it is not only for methane, is that we have a very 

old natural gas distribution infrastructure, for example, in many of 

our cities. We saw a tragedy in New York not so long ago. And I 

think the issue is jobs as well. Let us get a modern infrastructure 

built, and that will take care of the methane leaks as well. 

So those are some of the ways we are thinking about it. 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Veasey. The gentleman from 

North Dakota, Mr. Cramer, is recognized. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am delighted to hear of your continuing commitment to 

putting research dollars into carbon capture, especially into using 

that carbon to enhanced oil recovery because, of course, in North 

Dakota, any research that has as its ultimate goal extending the 

life of our coal mines and our Bakken oil patch is a noble goal indeed. So I thank you for that. 

I just hope that we can put enough research dollars into DOE to 

keep up with the rules at the EPA so we don’t get the rule ahead 

of the research. 

I want to ask you specifically, though, you referenced earlier a 

little bit about efficiency, and I want to focus specifically on turbine 

efficiency and the role that might have in producing, well, putting 

us at a global advantage for lots of things, not the least of which 

is by the way the manufacturing sector and manufacturing the turbines that might can get us another percent or two or three. And 

with gas becoming more and more important and a more and more 

important fuel, for generating electricity, I would like you to speak 

specifically if you would to research that enhances gas efficiency for 

generating electricity. 

Secretary MONIZ. Certainly. And by the way, I might add, going 

back to your prologue, of course, with the Great Plains Plant—— 

Mr. CRAMER. Yes. 
70 

Secretary MONIZ. —I think they have now passed 20 megatons 

of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery in the Weyburn field. So it is quite 

a—— 

Mr. CRAMER. That is true. 

Secretary MONIZ. Quite a large amount over the last ten years 

or so. On turbine efficiency, the Department really going back to 

the ’90s had a very, very major program on increased Turbine efficiency that was done with—I think the main programs were with 

GE and with Siemens leading both of them to now commercialize. 

I think it is called the F-turbine series. So those were a substantial 

job in efficiency. I think they are now getting into the marketplace, 

and it is very impressive, certainly in combined cycle plants. Now 

I think you are talking over 60 percent efficiency. So it is a big 

deal. 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, if we could squeeze another percent or two 

and get into the low 60s, I think it, my understanding is that it 

could make quite a massive difference. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah, no, percent’s here or there matter. 

Mr. CRAMER. Yeah, they sure do. I want to focus on something 

a little different now. A couple of years ago, I think two years ago 

this month actually, the Administration or the President actually 

signed an executive order forming the Interagency Working Group 

on research for hydraulic fracturing, and at the time it was announced that there would be a research plan developed by the 

agencies included, of course the Department of Energy, EPA, I believe the Geological Surveys, part of that. It was going to be presented to Congress in January. January came and went last year. 

January has come and gone this year. We are now into the blossom 

season here in Washington, D.C. I am just wondering if you could 

give us some idea of when we will see that plan? 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. I will certainly look into that right after 

the hearing. There is a very active group with DOE involved in 

these unconventional gas technologies. I certainly have seen a research agenda there, so let me just look into that and see if we 

can’t get something to you. 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, I know. I think the promise was that Congress would be presented with a research plan from the working 

group. We have not seen that. 

Secretary MONIZ. I hear you. 

Mr. CRAMER. So we—— 

Secretary MONIZ. So let me look into that. 

Mr. CRAMER. Okay. We will look forward to—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Because there certainly is an R&D agenda that 

I have seen there. 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, I appreciate that. And Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cramer. The gentleman 

from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, is recognized for any questions 

except those dealing with offshore wind. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time. 

Mr. Secretary, it is great to see you again. It is always good to see 

a constituent. So thank you for your service. 

I want to follow up a little bit about some of those issues that 

we have talked about before but predominantly clean energy and— 
71 

we will leave it broad for that. But nevertheless, the Department 

of Energy’s budget proposal, Mr. Secretary, as you know, continues 

to support an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and you spoke about 

this a little bit a couple minutes ago. Specifically, it also increases 

funding for clean and renewable energy programs. The clean energy sector has huge implications in both short and long run. 

In the long run, I think we could make huge strides in protecting 

our environment and minimizing the negative impact of human 

interaction with our environment. If these renewable technologies 

are brought to scale, it could also significantly address an issue 

that we constantly hear from our constituents back home about 

ever increasing energy prices. 

I would like to focus however, briefly, if I could with you, Mr. 

Secretary, on the shorter term economic implications of investing 

in clean energy technologies. As you well know, my district and 

yours is home to a number of communities that are already taking 

on some of these risks. A recent report from the Massachusetts 

Clean Energy Center notes that Southeastern Massachusetts and 

your hometown of Fall River is right at the center of it, it is now 

one of the fastest-growing regions in the Commonwealth with clean 

energy employment, with an increase of 14.3 percent from 2012 to 

2013 representing over 17,000 jobs. That is a real impact right 

now. 

With this budget, the Administration is recognizing this opportunity. So in that framework, I have got three questions for you, 

sir. First, what can we expect from the Department of Energy’s efforts to invest in these types of technologies? Second, what results 

should we realistically be able to achieve if we funded this proposal 

in full. And third, how can we prepare to develop a top-notch clean 

energy workforce to help keep these jobs right here at home? 

Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. Let me try to take those three on. 

Well, I will kind of all put them all together I guess. So first of all, 

the issue of the jobs, in the energy sector in general and in the 

clean energy sector in particular, clearly are increasing. I think for 

example in solar energy where up to like 150,000 there, and that 

is just only one sector. In wind, by the way, where you can make 

the translation of jobs based on groth we have gone in a relatively 

short time from the United States providing about 25 percent of 

the supply chain for wind turbines deployed in the United States 

to now over 70 percent. So that is, again—manufacturing, installation, all these kinds of jobs are happening. So the programs themselves will continue to stimulate jobs and to stimulate manufacturing. 

Now, in that context, another element is our focus in laying the 

foundation for the critical technologies for our future manufacturing capabilities in clean energy and other things. So for example, the Department of Energy and DOD did the first manufacturing institute on 3–D printing. The Department of Energy did 

another one ourselves on high-powered electronics, which affects 

many parts of the energy technology space. We have announced a 

third one on light-weight composite materials. Many applications, 

vehicles, wind turbine blades, et cetera. So that is a second. 
72 

A third element is in our budget proposal, we want to start something I mentioned it a little bit earlier, NIH-type traineeships. This 

is going to the human resources now, traineeships that focus on 

specific areas of human resource need in this country, like power 

electronics, like people who really know high-performance computing, algorithm development, areas like that. So targeted sectors 

where we need more of our people engaged. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I appreciate your 

plug for, which I am not sure if you knew, our manufacturing bill 

that we had a hearing on here in this Committee. It has got great 

bipartisan support with Congressman Tom Reed as well a number 

of bipartisan co-sponsors, up to about 60 or so. So hopefully some 

of our other colleagues will sign on. Thank you for your time, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. The gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. Moniz, thank 

you for being here. Do you know where the largest CCSS facility 

is in the country? 

Secretary MONIZ. In this country, it is probably in Texas, and 

certainly the largest CO2 EOR place in the country is in West 

Texas, I think. 

Mr. WEBER. Right, but for the carbon capture and sequestration 

storage, or what you would call carbon capture and utilization storage facility, do you know where the largest one is? 

Secretary MONIZ. Right now it is right in the Houston Channel, 

I believe. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, no, it is actually in my district. 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, I am sorry. Wrong district. 

Mr. WEBER. I know that is a shocker for you. Yeah, just east of 

that small town of Houston which is one of our suburbs—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. 

Mr. WEBER. —over in the Beaumont, Port Arthur area. 

Secretary MONIZ. That is what I meant, Port Arthur. 

Mr. WEBER. I knew that. You just spelled it differently. 

Secretary MONIZ. That is right. 

Mr. WEBER. So do you have any idea what the cost of that facility was? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, I do not, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. It was about $440 or $460 million as I recall, in the 

mid-400s. Do you know what the Department of Energy’s kick in 

to that was, how much money they supplied to Air Products, Incorporated? 

Secretary MONIZ. Not precisely. 

Mr. WEBER. Sixty percent, about 200. If you just took $400 million, it would be $240 million. It is going to be a little bit more 

than that. I don’t believe that that kind of project is duplicable. 

You can’t duplicate that. You know, we had the chairman from 

Southern Energy come in and talk about the plant they are building in Mississippi, and there is no way that we can, as rational 

people say, that that is a sustainable economic business, viable 

business project when the taxpayers are having to support it to the 

tune of 60 percent. Would you agree with that? 
73 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think we need the context, however, 

that these are first mover plants, and the expectation is costs will 

come down as more of these—— 

Mr. WEBER. Do you know how long it has been in operation? 

Secretary MONIZ. I thought it was like one year. 

Mr. WEBER. It has been a little over a year they opened up. I was 

there for the grand opening. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Mr. WEBER. But when you have got other plants looking at this 

and saying there is no way, trust me, they are studying that bottom line, and that is cost in that balance sheet. And they are saying there is no way they can duplicate this. I just want to make 

sure you know. I believe that the United States is poised on the 

verge of an energy renaissance, but I also believe that the current 

energy policy, and that is the Department of Energy, their current 

policy is going to keep us from being able to realize as much of that 

energy renaissance as we might have and could ultimately affect 

national security. 

So here is my question for you. Have you read the State Department’s study on the Keystone pipeline, the report? 

Secretary MONIZ. I have not read the full report. I read the summary—— 

Mr. WEBER. You read the summary—— 

Secretary MONIZ. —of the EIS. 

Mr. WEBER. —of it? Are you aware that some seven Federal 

agencies, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ag, Department of Energy, Department of Interior, Transportation, Office 

of Pipeline and Safety, the U.S. EPA and various state and local 

agencies contributed to that report? Did you know that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Including of course the Department of Energy? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Do you agree with the findings of that report? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, we are in the process right now of making our comments in the 90-day comment period. So I think I have 

to leave it at that for the moment. 

Mr. WEBER. But you were a part of that report. So when—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Our office supplied technical support. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Did you do a good job? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think so. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, then that report should be a good report. 

Secretary MONIZ. For at least our part of it. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. All right. Touch ̆ e. So does the Department of 

Energy ever give thought or study to the greenery, the environment, the trees, the grass on their ability to take CO2 and to use 

it in photosynthesis and ingest, you know, how they use CO2, 

Plants take that and make oxygen. Are you studying the ability of 

the environment going forward to be able to synthesize if you will 

that CO2 or are you just studying the output of the CO2 from the 

various sources? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, no, there are a variety of efforts in terms 

of understanding and maybe engineering some of the up-take in 

land use systems. 
74 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Do you agree with my idea, my statement, 

that our energy policy may be hampering that energy renaissance 

and that could affect our national security? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, I do not, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. You don’t agree? 

Secretary MONIZ. No. 

Mr. WEBER. The President said during his—— 

Secretary MONIZ. I would argue by observation we are doing 

pretty well on the renaissance. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, I think we could do better. We would love to 

get the Keystone Pipeline down into my district. And so when the 

President said under his energy policy, electricity prices would of 

necessity skyrocket, have you seen that video, that YouTube? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, I have not. 

Mr. WEBER. I think he is making good on that claim, but I think 

it is at our expense. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, of course, our job as we have always said 

is fundamentally—the aim of our innovation programs is continued 

cost-reduction of technologies, especially low-carbon technologies. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Mr. Chairman—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Which would include CCS and others. 

Mr. WEBER. Yeah, it is just not duplicable. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Weber. Let me say to Members 

that we are going to recess after Ms. Brownley asks her questions 

and Chris Collins asks his questions, and we will recess until noon, 

and we expect the votes to be over. Secretary Moniz can stay until 

12:30. So between 12:00 and 12:30 I believe Members who have not 

asked questions will have an opportunity to do so, and we will be 

able to accommodate all Members. 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Brownley, is recognized 

for her questions. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for joining us today. My questions concern the Environmental Management account and the ongoing clean-up of Area 5 of 

the Santa Susana Field Lab which is in my district. Clean-up at 

Santa Susana is of critical importance to my constituents and has 

been for decades. It is undisputed that toxic chemicals were used, 

spilled and dumped at Santa Susana. It is imperative that we 

eliminate the potential and significant health and safety risk for 

people who will continue to live nearby and those who will be using 

the site in future years. 

Any clean-up to less than background levels will leave both radioactive and chemical contamination in place regardless of the 

end-use of the property which, at this point, is undecided. 

So my question is, is the Department of Energy fully committed 

to adhering to the 2007 Consent Order for Corrective action and 

the 2010 Administrative Order on Consent with the State of California? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. My understanding is that we are developing the required EIS, it is moving along and expect to have that 

available, that draft, late this year or very early in 2015. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. So you are on track for early ’15? I think it was 

supposed to be completed—— 
75 

Secretary MONIZ. Correct. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. —by September? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. Well, maybe late this year. We are trying. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Okay. But by 2015 you believe—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Early. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Early. 

Secretary MONIZ. Early 2015, preferably late this year. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, sir. And in the 2014—well, in 2014 Congress provided approximately $9.4 million for the clean-up and 

in the 2015 request asked for only $8.96 million which is a reduction of about almost $450,000. So my question is, has the Department of Energy requested reduced funding? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, yes, obviously we proposed a few percent 

reduction. I mean, this is consistent with what we had to across 

the board because of the constrained caps. I mean, in our overall 

EM budget, we had to come down $200 million. But within this 

budget, we will complete the draft EIS. We will start the final EIS. 

We will submit the conceptual ground water model report. I think 

we can accomplish a lot in Fiscal Year 2015. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Okay. And so there is a list of milestones proposed for 2015. You have mentioned some of them, the draft EIS, 

completing ground water characterization, submitting a final remediation plan and a conceptual ground water report to state regulators. So you feel the budget is sufficient to accomplish those 

goals? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think we can. It is always tight, and a little 

more money would help. But again, this is just in the context of— 

this is frankly like an across-the-board haircut that we had to take 

in the end. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Understood, and I appreciate your answers and 

appreciate your commitment to this. This is an issue that I have 

worked on for a very long time when I was in the State Legislature 

and now here in Congress, and I can’t underscore how important 

it is to Southern California and particularly to my constituents. So 

I appreciate your focus and commitment. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you. I will be the last one, Mr. Secretary. 

Then we will go through the recess. My question concerns the loan 

guarantee program and in particular, you know, I live in a world 

where actions speak a lot louder than words. And we have loan 

guarantees for renewables. We have loan guarantees for fossil fuel 

programs. Frankly, some of the actions that we have seen including 

what I will call the gross negligence on the due diligence on 

Solyndra. I have spent 30 years in the private equity world. I know 

due diligence, and I have to say, on that one, and I don’t want to 

beat a dead horse, it was pretty obvious that the Administration 

was looking to approve something frankly absence due diligence. But right now my concern is the $8 billion fossil loan guarantee 

program which closed on February 28. And we saw some of those 

projects appear to be ones that were submitted in the past. They 

languished. They were anything but fast-tracked. Actions seem to 

indicate to many of us the Administration is picking winners and 
76 

losers. They are picking renewables over fossil. They are fast-tracking, absent due diligence, on renewables while good fossil programs 

languish. That is what our observations based on results would indicate. 

So frankly, with the February 28 date, have any of these fossil 

grants been approved? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, no. But first of all, I want to emphasize 

that the program is not closed. This is kind of a rolling set of applications, though. 

Mr. COLLINS. So we had the ones that—— 

Secretary MONIZ. So that was the first—— 

Mr. COLLINS. —were due—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Mr. COLLINS. —February 28. 

Secretary MONIZ. That was the first date. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. And there will be other dates moving forward. 

Secondly, there are some earlier applications. One in particular 

was mentioned earlier, coal to liquids, which was dramatically 

changed by the proposers, and they have been notified that that is 

going into—well, they were offered to go into the next stage of due 

diligence, and they have accepted, and so that is now into due diligence. And there were some new proposals that came in as well 

that I can’t discuss at the moment. 

I must say, obviously I have been at the Department for, I don’t 

know now, 11 months I guess, counting on 11 months. And the current director of the Loan Program Office, Peter Davidson. I would 

love to get you two together to discuss the program if that is of interest and given your background. But I think he is very competent, and I have to say, I believe that this group is very competent in their due diligence, and I think we could demonstrate 

that. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, can we expect to see a number of programs 

on the fossil program that were completed in February, approved 

in a rolling method? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, that is our intent. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. But again, we will not approve projects just to hit $8 billion. We will only approve projects if—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. No, I understand—— 

Secretary MONIZ. —if they do not do due diligence. 

Mr. COLLINS. —but again, the past would indicate in renewables, 

in fact, the Department prior to your heading it did approve 

projects for the purpose of approving projects absent due diligence—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, but he—— 

Mr. COLLINS. —or Solyndra never would have occurred so—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, sir, again, without getting into Solyndra 

specifically, I can say that a lot of other renewables projects have 

been very, very successful. One example we like to quote is in 2009, 

2010, as you well know, when debt financing was particularly difficult, the first five utility-scale photovoltaic projects were given 

loan guarantees. They are all performing, they all have PPAs—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, again, no I understand that—— 
77 

Secretary MONIZ. And—— 

Mr. COLLINS. —and time is running short. 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh. 

Mr. COLLINS. But let me ask you, have you done an after-action 

look at Solyndra, what went wrong, what didn’t happen, what 

should have happened. Have we learned from our mistakes? 

Secretary MONIZ. I have not personally done that, but I believe 

that was done before my arrival and Solyndra was good—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I—— 

Secretary MONIZ. —very early in the program. 

Mr. COLLINS. I would appreciate if you could share with our 

Committee what that after-action found because the staggering 

amount and the fact that, quite frankly, it has become, you know, 

the stalking horse that we talk about. It would make I know me 

and others feel good if we would learn from the mistakes. That was 

a very costly waste of taxpayer dollars. Let us hope we get some 

value out of it to learn from. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah, if I may just add that it is because I 

don’t want to tie it to the one particular project, but I think the 

learning process in this group has been very, very clear and very, 

very substantial. I think they are an extremely strong group in this 

moment, and that came from lessons learned. 

Mr. COLLINS. All right. Well, I would like to see what we did. As 

I close up for right now before we recess, can you tell us the dollar 

amount of loan guarantees that have closed for renewables? The 

total. 

Secretary MONIZ. The total amount. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yeah, the total dollar amount for renewables 

versus nuclear versus fossil, closed. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, what closed is $6.5 million on nuclear. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. Roughly $8-plus billion on advanced vehicles. 

So that is say, $14, $15 billion. Subtract that from 32. So we are 

at 14 probably renewables. 

Mr. COLLINS. And none for fossil? 

Secretary MONIZ. Not yet. I don’t believe any have closed on fossil yet, but that is the current call. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Mr. COLLINS. The Committee will now stand in recess until after 

the beginning of the last vote. Thank you for all your patience. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman SMITH. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee 

will reconvene. Secretary Moniz, several Members have come back 

from our series of votes, and I am glad they are here. And then I 

have an additional question for you about nuclear fusion after they 

have finished. 

And we will now turn to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, 

Ms. Clark, for her questions. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

very gracious and warm welcome to this Committee. It is truly a 

privilege to be a part of it, and I thank you for that and also for 
78 

having arranged at my first hearing we will have one of our most 

prestigious Bay Staters here with us. 

Chairman SMITH. It was all intentional. 

Ms. CLARK. Yes. Well, thank you. It is fantastic. 

Secretary MONIZ. And a Red Sox fan. 

Ms. CLARK. That is exactly right. And so thank you very much, 

Mr. Secretary. It is a pleasure to be here with you. And I had a 

couple of more general questions as I make my way around my incredible district and the work that is being done on energy, the life 

sciences and really that connection in Massachusetts between the 

academics and what we produce, what we research in the labs and 

our ability to take that to the marketplace. 

One of my questions for you comes out of what I am hearing has 

certainly been a focus of my colleague, Congressman Kennedy, and 

many others on this Committee is a focus on STEM education. And 

I was very heartened in your testimony when you mentioned your 

commitment really to keeping the United States as a global leader 

in high-performance computing. And some of these STEM programs that have been very vital to the work in Massachusetts, 

there have been many, but two in particular are the Computational 

Science Graduate Fellowships and also the graduate student research programs, both of which the budget is proposing to significantly cut. And I wondered if you could tell me a little bit about 

your thinking behind that and what some of the alternatives for 

those programs might be. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you, and my I welcome you as well to 

Washington. First of all, in terms of graduate student support 

through research programs, that will continue in a very robust way 

that, you know, principally going through our research grants. On 

the fellowship side, again, the Administration has felt that it would 

be more efficient and effective to consolidate how fellowships are 

done which, for example, in our case the National Science Foundation being in the lead and that we will collaborate with them so 

that our areas of interest are addressed. But in that particular 

case, the computational science as I have said, that is one of the 

areas that we would like to use in this kind of pioneering effort 

this year, I mean Fiscal Year 2015, for the NIH-style traineeship 

programs which will focus on specific areas of national need of relevance to energy programs. 

So we will emphasize that, and if I may make one other comment 

more broadly on the STEM education, that is we two years ago 

started a Women in Clean Energy program. In my previous life at 

MIT, we were pleased to help that program go forward with a partnership, and then subsequent to my arrival last year, we started 

a similar Minorities in Energy program. And so another very important issue is that frankly, both women and minorities are 

underrepresented in the energy workforce today. It is opportunity 

for them, and it is need for us. 

Ms. CLARK. Great. Thank you. You anticipated my second question. That is wonderful, and I see that my time is dwindling here, 

but I just want to also say that as we look at our clean tech and 

really look at that thriving industry in Massachusetts, there are 

some that say it is too soon, it is too immature of an energy to really have an energy technology to really have an impact on climate 
79 

change and on reducing greenhouse emissions. And I certainly look 

forward to working with you to disproving that. 

Secretary MONIZ. And we can’t wait. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you very much. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Clark. The gentleman from 

Ohio, Mr. Johnson, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again it 

is great to be serving on the Science and Technology Committee, 

and I would like to also welcome our colleague, Ms. Clark, to the 

Committee as one of the newest Members myself. It is good to have 

her aboard. 

Mr. Secretary, it is always good to see you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Good to see you. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. There might be those that think you and 

I have a standing Thursday morning meeting because we have 

been meeting like this for a couple of weeks now. And I would like 

to start off today with a few questions on Yucca Mountain, Mr. Secretary. Your Department has repeatedly committed, both in Congressional hearings and in correspondence, that DOE would honor 

NRC’s November 18th order and support the Yucca Mountain License Review. As recently as January 6, the DOE stated it would 

honor NRC’s request to complete a ground water supplement to the 

Yucca Mountain EIS and indicated that it had taken steps to do 

so, including procuring contractor services and drafting a Notice of 

Intent. 

However, on February 28th, DOE notified NRC that it would not 

prepare the EIS supplement. Why did DOE change its mind over 

those seven weeks? 

Secretary MONIZ. First of all, we are fully supporting the process, 

and what I had referred to in terms of contractor, et cetera, we are 

working very hard on the update of the ground water technical volume which is the essential input, and frankly, we think we are 

probably going to get that done this month, so pretty quickly. In 

the discussions in terms of actually running the process, we had 

discussions with Chairwoman McFarland. The view was—and in 

their request, it was made clear that that step could be done by either one of us, that as the adjudicator, then we felt it was better 

if they formally ran the process, but we fully support all of the information required. In fact, we were in the public hearing on Monday presenting the ground water technical process. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, the NRC currently has a remaining 

nuclear waste fund balance of some $12.4 million, and it is not 

clear that NRC has enough funds to complete the EIS supplement 

and to complete the remaining safety evaluation report volumes. 

Won’t your decision, the Department’s decision force NRC to deplete its funds even faster? 

Secretary MONIZ. We don’t believe it is a material impact. I 

mean, what we are doing right now with the ground water technical analysis has required some funding which we have, and those 

remaining steps are not resource-intensive. But certainly we had 

no statement that that would create a problem. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, I am just curious. If there was a 

question about who was responsible for doing the EIS, why did the 
80 

DOE commit to doing it in the first place if now you are determining that it is best carried out by NRC? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, Pete Lyons wrote a letter as you said correctly in January stating that he would. Again, we had further discussions including my discussing with the chair of the NRC, and 

we just felt this was, in the end, this was a better approach. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, given that DOE has a nuclear waste fund balance of about $44 million, wouldn’t it be more cost 

effective for DOE to carry out that earlier commitment? 

Secretary MONIZ. I have to check the exact numbers. I think our 

unobligated balances are something like $17 million I believe. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. My understanding is $44 million, but I 

mean, if you could get back to me on that, that would be great. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think the distinction is that the unobligated balances—I will get back to you precisely, but I believe it is 

$17 million. I believe the thought is that if called upon, we may 

be able to deobligate some other funds and bring them into this. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. All right. Well, Mr. Secretary, I enjoy 

working with you, and I like you. We have a good rapport, and I 

think that you are doing the best that you can in a tough situation. 

But from where we are sitting, it seems that there is an orchestrated campaign by Senator Reid and the Administration to run 

the funding dry at NRC so that they cannot complete the safety 

evaluation report. This I happening because once that safety evaluation report comes out saying that Yucca is safe for a million 

years, then opposition from Senator Reid will be made moot, and 

there will be no choice but to move forward with Yucca. Are we 

wrong in this assumption that there is pressure coming from the 

Senate Majority Leader? 

Secretary MONIZ. I can flatly state that there was no consideration of that type in that decision about their completing that, because again, we are doing the lift in terms of the update of all the 

technical information. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. And my time has expired, and 

again, this is not personal because I enjoy working with you, Mr. 

Secretary. But we want to make sure that you and the NRC know 

that we are very carefully watching this process, and we are not 

going to allow any kind of outside influences to detract and delay 

the release of that safety evaluation report. 

Secretary MONIZ. And if I may just again, we will, as we have 

said, we will execute the things that we need to do. The courts 

have ruled against the NRC in that case. But also I will just note 

that, as you all know, another court ruling which we have pursued 

is we submitted our letter on the waste fee following the court’s 

dictate. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Secretary 

Moniz, I was going to ask you a question about nuclear fusion, and 

I know you have an expert with you, the Acting Director of the Office of Science, but before she steps up, I now realize it would 

amount to probably an individual tutorial. And what I would like 

to do in lieu of getting into that right now is ask you if you would 

submit a report and give us an update on the progress we are mak-
81 

ing toward achieving nuclear fusion, and let me distribute it to all 

Committee Members. And that way everyone will benefit from your 

knowledge, and it just won’t be an individual right now. 

So if we could do that, then we will momentarily stand adjourned. But thank you, Secretary Moniz, for being with us today. 

Thank you for being gracious with your time. And I have to say to 

you, you always give the impression, which I assume is an accurate 

one, of being forthright and basing your decisions more on data 

than something that might be influenced by politics. And we appreciate that. 

Secretary MONIZ. We try. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Secretary Moniz. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. And we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(83) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
84 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Hon. Ernest Moniz 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 

Æ